GRIDBSCAN: GRId Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clustering is one of the basic data mining tasks that can be used to extract hidden information from data in the absence of target classes. One of the most well-known density based clustering algorithms for processing spatial data is Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Application with Noise (DBSCAN) that uses learning parameters epsiv andminPtsto define the density that will be sought in the data set while forming the clusters. The major drawbacks of the DBSCAN algorithm are its sensitivity to user input required to execute the algorithm, inability to recognize clusters with different densities, and computational complexity. In this study, we propose a three-level clustering method to address the second issue. The first level selects appropriate grids so that the density is homogeneous in each grid. The second stage merges cells with similar densities and identifies the most suitable values of epsiv andminPtsin each grid that remain after merging. The third step of the proposed method executes the DBSCAN method with these identified parameters in the dataset. The proposed method is tested in three artificial benchmark data sets to demonstrate that the clusters are correctly identified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".