Bibliographic record
Abstract
The developments in communication, sensor and computing technologies are generating information at increasing rates and the nature of the data is becoming highly heterogeneous. Accordingly, the objects under study are described by collections of variables of very different kinds (e.g. numeric, non-numeric, images, signals, videos, documents, etc.) with different degrees of imprecision and incompleteness. Many data mining and machine learning methods do not handle heterogeneity well, requiring variables of the same type, information completeness (or imputation), also assuming no imprecision. Extreme learning machines (ELM) are very interesting computational algorithms because of their structural simplicity, their good performance and their speed. Accordingly, extending their scope by making them capable of processing heterogeneous information may increase their attractiveness as a modeling tool for addressing complex problems. ELMs are discussed in the context of heterogeneous data and approaches to build ELMs capable of performing classification and regression tasks in such cases are presented. Their performance is illustrated with real world examples of classification and regression involving heterogeneous information with scalar data described by nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio, and fuzzy variables as well as with entire empirical probability distributions as predictor variables.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".