Exploring Anthropometric Data through Cluster Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="htmlview paragraph">Anthropometric databases consisting of both multimedia and relational content are increasingly becoming commonplace. These databases are huge and contain data with diverse formats, representations and models. Data mining provides a powerful mechanism to further explore and explain the data as contained in these heterogeneous repositories, focusing on discovering new relationships which cannot be found using standard information retrieval techniques. In particular, cluster analysis is a data mining technique which is used to group data records into unlabeled classes, e.g. to group individuals with similar body types, income and education levels into a cluster, using unsupervised learning.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">This paper introduces cluster analysis as a method to explore 3D body scans together with the relational anthropometric and demographic data as contained in an integrated multimedia anthropometric database. The paper provides an overview of different cluster analysis algorithms and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each approach when mining 3D objects together with relational attributes. Cluster analysis algorithms are evaluated in terms of scalability, the number of attributes that can be processed, the level of human intervention required and the characteristics of the clusters, amongst others. This is followed by a discussion on the application of cluster analysis to anthropometric data. The use of cluster analysis to group the data records into clusters based on both the 3D body scans and the relational attributes lead to a new understanding of the data and their interrelationships.</div>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it