MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142103633 · doi:10.1109/tkde.2006.172

Discovering Frequent Closed Partial Orders from Strings

2006· article· en· W2142103633 on OpenAlexafffund
Jian Pei, Haixun Wang, Jian Liu, Ke Wang, Jianyong Wang, Philip S. Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceMultisetData miningString (physics)PruningSet (abstract data type)Knowledge extractionOrder (exchange)Theoretical computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mining knowledge about ordering from sequence data is an important problem with many applications, such as bioinformatics, Web mining, network management, and intrusion detection. For example, if many customers follow a partial order in their purchases of a series of products, the partial order can be used to predict other related customers' future purchases and develop marketing campaigns. Moreover, some biological sequences (e.g., microarray data) can be clustered based on the partial orders shared by the sequences. Given a set of items, a total order of a subset of items can be represented as a string. A string database is a multiset of strings. In this paper, we identify a novel problem of mining frequent closed partial orders from strings. Frequent closed partial orders capture the nonredundant and interesting ordering information from string databases. Importantly, mining frequent closed partial orders can discover meaningful knowledge that cannot be disclosed by previous data mining techniques. However, the problem of mining frequent closed partial orders is challenging. To tackle the problem, we develop Frecpo (for frequent closed partial order), a practically efficient algorithm for mining the complete set of frequent closed partial orders from large string databases. Several interesting pruning techniques are devised to speed up the search. We report an extensive performance study on both real data sets and synthetic data sets to illustrate the effectiveness and the efficiency of our approach

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations93
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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