MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321318280 · doi:10.4310/sii.2011.v4.n1.a2

Detection of rare items with TARGET

2011· article· en· W2321318280 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics and Its Interface · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceDecision treeRank (graph theory)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningData miningTree (set theory)Pattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In our new information-based economy, the need to detect a small number of relevant and useful items from a large database arises very often. Standard classifiers such as decision trees and neural networks are often used directly as a detection algorithm. We argue that such an approach is not optimal because these classifiers are almost always built to optimize a criterion that is suitable only for classification but not for detection. For detection of rare items, the misclassification rate and other closely associated criteria are largely irrelevant; what matters is whether the algorithm can rank the few useful items ahead of the rest, something better measured by the area under the ROC curve or the notion of the average precision (AP). We use the genetic algorithm to build decision trees by optimizing the AP directly, and compare the performance of our algorithm with a number of standard tree-based classifiers using both simulated and real data sets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it