Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we introduce a certain knowledge-guided scheme of fuzzy clustering in which domain knowledge is represented in the form of so-called viewpoints. Viewpoints capture a way in which the user introduces his/her point of view at the data by identifying some representatives, which, being treated as externally introduced prototypes, have to be included in the clustering process. More formally, the viewpoints (views) augment the original, data-based objective function by including the term that expresses distances between data and the viewpoints. Depending upon the nature of domain knowledge, the viewpoints are represented either in a plain numeric format (considering that there is a high level of specificity with regard to how one establishes perspective from which the data need to be analyzed) or through some information granules (which reflect a more relaxed way in which the views at the data are being expressed). The detailed optimization schemes are presented, and the performance of the method is illustrated through some numeric examples. We also elaborate on a way in which the clustering with viewpoints enhances fuzzy models and mechanisms of decision making in the sense that the resulting constructs reflect the preferences and requirement that are present in the modeling environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it