An Improved Version of K-medoid Algorithm using CRO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clustering is the process of grouping a set of patterns into different disjoint clusters where each cluster contains the alike patterns. Many algorithms had been proposed before for clustering. K-medoid is a variant of k-mean that use an actual point in the cluster to represent it instead of the mean in the k-mean algorithm to get the outliers and reduce noise in the cluster. In order to enhance performance of k-medoid algorithm and get more accurate clusters, a hybrid algorithm is proposed which use CRO algorithm along with k-medoid. In this method, CRO is used to expand searching for the optimal medoid and enhance clustering by getting more precise results. The performance of the new algorithm is evaluated by comparing its results with five clustering algorithms, k-mean, k-medoid, DB/rand/1/bin, CRO based clustering algorithm and hybrid CRO-k-mean by using four real world datasets: Lung cancer, Iris, Breast cancer Wisconsin and Haberman’s survival from UCI machine learning data repository. The results were conducted and compared base on different metrics and show that proposed algorithm enhanced clustering technique by giving more accurate results.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".