MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161762394 · doi:10.1109/cec.2006.1688478

Virtual Reality Spaces for Visual Data Mining with Multiobjective Evolutionary Optimization: Implicit and Explicit Function Representations Mixing Unsupervised and Supervised Properties

2006· article· en· W2161762394 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMixing (physics)Computer scienceFunction (biology)Virtual realityArtificial intelligenceEvolutionary algorithmMachine learningTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-objective optimization is used for the computation of virtual reality spaces for visual data mining and knowledge discovery. Two methods for computing new spaces are discussed: implicit and explicit function representations. In the first, the images of the objects are computed directly, and in the second, universal function approximators (neural networks) are obtained. The pros and cons of each approach are discussed, as well as their complementary character. The NSGA-II algorithm is used for computing spaces requested to minimize two objectives: a similarity structure loss measure (Sammon's error) and classification error (mean cross-validation error on a k-nn classifier). Two examples using solutions along approximations to the Pareto front are presented: Alzheimer's disease gene expressions and geophysical fields for prospecting underground caves. This approach is a general non-linear feature generation and can be used in problems not necessarily oriented to the construction of visual data representations.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.038
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