MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125618387 · doi:10.1109/nafips.2004.1336295

Cluster validation indices for fMRI data: Fuzzy C-Means with feature partitions versus cluster merging strategies

2004· article· en· W2125618387 on OpenAlexaff
M.D. Alexiuk, Nick J. Pizzi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Annual Meeting of the Fuzzy Information, 2004. Processing NAFIPS '04. · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Institute for Biodiagnostics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceCentroidArtificial intelligenceFuzzy logicFalse positive paradoxCluster analysisData miningFeature (linguistics)Fuzzy setCluster (spacecraft)Fuzzy clustering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fuzzy C-Means (FCM) is a standard technique for exploratory analysis and is readily adaptable to integrate unique data characteristics and auxiliary feature relations. Distinguishing between the spatial and temporal features of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) time courses (TC) has proved effective in reducing the presence of false positives for stimulation studies. The fuzzy partitions generated by this FCM variant (FCMP) are compared to several cluster merging techniques using cluster validation indices. These indices quantify the degree to which a dataset justifies a particular membership partition. A basic cluster merging strategies is examined where closest samples in a distance matrix are merged. A novelty is the use of alternate centroid definitions. Finally, the dynamic modeling employed by the CHAMELEON clustering algorithm is examined. All algorithms are evaluated on a Tourette's fMRI dataset.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.013
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Annual Meeting of the Fuzzy Information, 2004. Processing NAFIPS '04.Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207