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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chun Gui, Qiang Lin

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Intelligence ResearchSame topicCustomer churn and segmentationFrench-language works237,207