MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135754018 · doi:10.1109/icpr.2008.4761258

Three related types of multi-value association patterns

2008· article· en· W2135754018 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings - International Conference on Pattern Recognition/Proceedings/International Conference on Pattern Recognition · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTupleNull hypothesisAssociation (psychology)Computer scienceValue (mathematics)Statistical hypothesis testingStatisticsPattern recognition (psychology)Event (particle physics)Data miningNull (SQL)MathematicsArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mining patterns involving multiple values that are significantly relevant is a difficult but very important problem that crosses many disciplines. Multi-value association patterns, which generalize sequential pattern, are sets of associated values extracted from sampling outcomes of a random N-tuple. Because they are value patterns from multiple variables, they are more descriptive than their corresponding variable patterns. Hence, they are also easier to interpret. Normally, they can be detected by statistical testing if the occurrence of a pattern event is significantly deviated from the expected according to a prior model or null hypothesis. In this paper, we consider three related types of multi-value association patterns including high-order pattern (HOP), consigned pattern (CP), and nested high-order pattern (NHOP). We further evaluate the nested high-order pattern and its relationships to the others using experiments.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.202 · 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