Relative Validity Criteria for Community Mining Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grouping data points is one of the fundamental tasks in data mining, which is commonly known as clustering if data points are described by attributes. When dealing with interrelated data that does not have any attributes and is represented in the form of nodes and their relationships, this task is also referred to as community mining. There has been a considerable number of approaches proposed in recent years for mining communities in a given network. But little work has been done on how to evaluate community mining results. The common practice is to use an agreement measure to compare the mining result against a ground truth, however, the ground truth is not known in most of the real world applications. In this paper, we investigate relative clustering quality measures defined for evaluation of clustering data points with attributes and propose proper adaptations to make them applicable in the context of social networks. Not only these relative criteria could be used as metrics for evaluating quality of the groupings but also they could be used as objectives for designing new community mining algorithms.
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 | 0.054 | 0.230 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".