MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163966399 · doi:10.1109/icdew.2010.5452736

Constrained frequent itemset mining from uncertain data streams

2010· article· en· W2163966399 on OpenAlexaff
Carson K. Leung, Boyu Hao, Fan Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAssociation rule learningData stream miningDatabase transactionData miningUncertain dataTree (set theory)Task (project management)DatabaseEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frequent itemset mining is a common data mining task for many real-life applications. The mined frequent itemsets can be served as building blocks for various patterns including association rules and frequent sequences. Many existing algorithms mine for frequent itemsets from traditional static transaction databases, in which the contents of each transaction (namely, items) are definitely known and precise. However, there are many situations in which ones are uncertain about the contents of transactions. This calls for the mining of uncertain data. Moreover, there are also situations in which users are interested in only some portions of the mined frequent itemsets (i.e., itemsets satisfying user-specified constraints, which express the user interest). This leads to constrained mining. Furthermore, due to advances in technology, a flood of data can be produced in many situations. This calls for the mining of data streams. To deal with all these situations, we propose tree-based algorithms to efficiently mine streams of uncertain data for frequent itemsets that satisfy user-specified constraints.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207