Cost-sensitive performance metric for comparing multiple ordinal classifiers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
, and average mean absolute error are three commonly used metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of an ordinal classifier. Although there are benefits to each, no single metric considers the benefits of predictive accuracy with the tradeoffs of misclassification cost. In addition, decision analysis that considers pairwise analysis of the metrics is not trivial due to inconsistent findings. A new cost-sensitive metric is proposed to find the optimal tradeoff between the two most critical performance measures of a classification task - accuracy and cost. The proposed method accounts for an inherent ordinal data structure, total misclassification cost of a classifier, and imbalanced class distribution. The strengths of the new methodology are demonstrated through analyses of three real cancer datasets and four simulation studies. The new cost-sensitive metric proved better performance in its ability to identify the best ordinal classifier for a given analysis. The performance metric devised in this study provides a comprehensive tool for comparative analysis of multiple (and competing) ordinal classifiers. Consideration of the tradeoff between accuracy and misclassification cost in decisions regarding ordinal classification problems is imperative in real-world application. The work presented here is a precursor to the possibility of incorporating the proposed metric into a prediction modeling algorithm for ordinal data as a means of integrating misclassification cost in final model selection.
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 | 0.028 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".