MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528516053 · doi:10.5430/air.v6n1p52

Comparison of three data mining algorithms for potential 4G customers prediction

2016· article· en· W2528516053 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer churn and segmentation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNatural Science Foundation of Gansu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceData miningPrecision and recallPredictive modellingOutlierAlgorithmNaive Bayes classifierRecallMachine learningArtificial intelligenceSupport vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The size and number of telecom databases are growing quickly but most of the data has not been analyzed for revealing thehidden and valuable intellectual. Models developed from data mining techniques are useful for telecom to make right prediction.The dataset contains one million customers from a telecom company. We implement data mining techniques, i.e. , AdaboostM1(ABM) algorithm, Naïve Bayes (NB) algorithm, Local Outlier Factor (LOF) algorithm to develop the predictive models. Thispaper studies the application of data mining techniques to develop 4G customer predictive models and compares three models onour dataset through precision, recall, and cumulative recall curve. The result is that precision of ABM, NB and LOF are 0.6016,0.6735 and 0.3844. From the aspects of cumulative recall curve NB algorithm also is the best one.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.481
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.006 · 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