A reliable composite classification strategy
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
A composite classification scheme is proposed by combining several classifiers with distinctly different design methodologies. The classifiers are selected from a number of state of the art pattern classification schemes with a view to obtain superior performance. In this scheme, no a priori information except a set of pre-classified data is assumed to be available. By using distinctly different classifiers, the common mode data misclassification is reduced. Traditionally, after the design and evaluation phase, the pre-classified data is discarded. In this scheme, however, the misclassified data from each classifier in the training set is tagged and stored with a view to weight the decisions of the classifiers. If a given test sample is close to a misclassified data cluster of a particular classifier, then the decision made by this classifier is given a lower weighting. The final decision is made by analysing the weighted combination of individual classifier decisions. The proposed algorithm is evaluated on both simulated data and on a biological cell classification problem and it is shown that improved accuracy is obtained when compared to that of the most accurate classifier.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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