AOC-posets: a scalable alternative to Concept Lattices for Relational Concept Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Relational Concept Analysis (RCA) is a useful tool for classi cation and rule discovery on sets of objects with relations. Based on FCA, it produces more results than the latter but also an increase in complexity. Besides, in numerous applications of FCA, AOC-posets are used rather than lattices in order to reduce combinatorial problems. An AOC-poset is a subset of the concept lattice considering only concepts introducing an object or an attribute. AOC-posets are much smaller and easier to compute than concept lattices and still contain the information needed to rebuild the initial data. This paper introduces a modi cation of the RCA process based on AOC-posets rather than concept lattices. This work is motivated by a big set of relational data on river streams to be analysed. We show that using AOC-poset on these data provides a reasonable concept number. 1
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".