MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2375344650

Method for customer segmentation based on three-way decisions theory

2014· article· en· W2375344650 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer Applications · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvaluation and Optimization Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSegmentationProfit (economics)Market segmentationDecision theoryDecision modelDecision analysisArtificial intelligenceDecision ruleData miningOperations researchMachine learningMathematicsMarketingBusinessStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To solve the uncertainty of customer segmentation, a new method based on three-way decisions theory was proposed. The method considered the risk cost and the profit of customer segmentation comprehensively. The problem of customer segmentation was modeled based on three-way decisions theory that included computing threshold and the procedure of application. Finally, an example was given to illustrate the procedure of application and the superiority of the new method.Three-way decision method was not only used in a procedure of two-way decision, but also used independently as a decision method. In accordance with decision results of three-way decision, there were three results that can provide three different strategies for three decision domains. The introduction of three-way decision theory provides a new view for customer segmentation, which can minimize risk cost.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.293 · 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