MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766985263 · doi:10.1109/icitech.2017.8079966

Integrating SOM and fuzzy k-means clustering for customer classification in personalized recommendation system for non-text based transactional data

2017· article· en· W2766985263 on OpenAlexaff
Sukhpreet Kaur Dhaliwal, Ngoc Nhu Van, Manmeet Dhaliwal, Jon Rokne, Reda Alhajj, Tansel Özyer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer churn and segmentation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCluster analysisRecommender systemData miningNoveltyTransaction dataProcess (computing)Customer relationship managementFuzzy logicFuzzy clusteringE-commerceDomain (mathematical analysis)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningWorld Wide WebDatabaseDatabase transaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The world of e-commerce is reshaping marketing strategies based on the analysis of e-commerce data. Huge amounts of data are being collecting and can be analyzed for some discoveries that may be used as guidance for people sharing same interests but lacking experience. Indeed, recommendation systems are becoming an essential business strategy tool from just a novelty. Many large e-commerce web sites are already encapsulating recommendation systems to provide a customer friendly environment by helping customers in their decision-making process. A recommendation system learns from a customer behavior patterns and recommend the most valuable from available alternative choices. In this paper, we developed a two-stage algorithm using self-organizing map (SOM) and fuzzy k-means with an improved distance function to classify users into clusters. This will lead to have in the same cluster users who mostly share common interests. Results from the combination of SOM and fuzzy K-means revealed better accuracy in identifying user related classes or clusters. We validated our results using various datasets to check the accuracy of the employed clustering approach. The generated groups of users form the domain for transactional datasets to find most valuable products for customers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCustomer churn and segmentationFrench-language works237,207