MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783872167

Classification algorithms and how to distribute them

2017· article· en· W2783872167 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

VenueComputer Science and Software Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)Queen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRewritingAlgorithmStatistical classificationIBMClassifier (UML)CategorizationBig dataPlug-inSPARK (programming language)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceData miningProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of how to adapt classification algorithms to handle the large volume of data associated with Big Data is commonly solved by rewriting the algorithms to run in a distributed fashion using a parallel programming language (e.g. OpenMP) or a parallel framework (e.g. Hadoop, Spark). While this approach can result in fast algorithms, it is time consuming and can be very challenging to implement for all algorithms. In this paper, we first categorize classification algorithms in terms of the difficulty to distribute them. Second, we propose the Distributed Classifier Training (DCT) approach for distributing all types of classification algorithms that maintains the same prediction accuracy without having to rewriting them. Finally, we implement the DCT approach as a free open-source IBM SPSS Modeler plugin.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.224 · 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