MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128933128 · doi:10.1109/tkde.2008.38

Simultaneous Pattern and Data Clustering for Pattern Cluster Analysis

2008· article· en· W2128933128 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew K. C. Wong, G.C.L. Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceData miningCluster analysisCategorical variableRelation (database)Cluster (spacecraft)Data setSet (abstract data type)Pattern recognition (psychology)Consensus clusteringMeasure (data warehouse)Artificial intelligenceFuzzy clusteringCURE data clustering algorithmMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In data mining and knowledge discovery, pattern discovery extracts previously unknown regularities in the data and is a useful tool for categorical data analysis. However, the number of patterns discovered is often overwhelming. It is difficult and time-consuming to 1) interpret the discovered patterns and 2) use them to further analyze the data set. To overcome these problems, this paper proposes a new method that clusters patterns and their associated data simultaneously. When patterns are clustered, the data containing the patterns are also clustered; and the relation between patterns and data is made explicit. Such an explicit relation allows the user on the one hand to further analyze each pattern cluster via its associated data cluster, and on the other hand to interpret why a data cluster is formed via its corresponding pattern cluster. Since the effectiveness of clustering mainly depends on the distance measure, several distance measures between patterns and their associated data are proposed. Their relationships to the existing common ones are discussed. Once pattern clusters and their associated data clusters are obtained, each of them can be further analyzed individually. To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, experimental results on synthetic and real data are reported.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations55
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data EngineeringSame topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207