A General Hybrid Clustering Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here, we propose a clustering technique for general clustering problems including those that have nonconvex clusters. For a given desired number of clusters K, we use three stages to find clusters. The first stage uses a hybrid clustering technique to produce a series of clusterings of various sizes (randomly selected). The key step in this stage is to find a K-means clustering using Kℓ clusters where Kℓ≫K and then join these small clusters by using single linkage clustering. The second stage stabilizes the result of stage one by reclustering via the “membership matrix” under Hamming distance to generate a dendrogram. The third stage is to cut the dendrogram to get K* clusters where K*≥K and then prune back to K to give a final clustering. A variant on our technique also gives a reasonable estimate for KT, the true number of clusters. We provide arguments to justify the steps in the stages of our methods and we provide examples involving simulated and published data to compare our technique with other techniques. An R library, GHC, implementing our method is available from Github.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
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".