MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141247253 · doi:10.1109/icdm.2001.989557

Data analysis and mining in ordered information tables

2002· article· en· W2141247253 on OpenAlex
Ying Sai, Yiyu Yao, Ning Zhong

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRanking (information retrieval)Computer scienceObject (grammar)Data miningValue (mathematics)Table (database)Order (exchange)Information extractionArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many real-world problems deal with ordering objects instead of classifying objects, although the majority of the research in machine learning and data mining has been focused on the latter. For the modeling of ordering problems, we generalize the notion of information tables to ordered information tables by adding order relations on attribute values. The problem of mining ordering rules is formulated as finding associations between the orderings of attribute values and the overall ordering of objects. An ordering rule may state, for example, that "if the value of an object x on an attribute a is ordered ahead of the value of another object y on the same attribute, then x is ordered ahead of y". For mining ordering rules, we first transform an ordered information table into binary information, and then apply any standard machine learning and data mining algorithms. As an illustration, we analyze in detail the Maclean's university ranking for the year 2000.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207