An application of PART to the Football Manager data for players clusters analyses to inform club team formation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aim to show how a neural network based machine learning projective clustering algorithm, Projective Adaptive Resonance Theory (PART), can be effectively used to provide data-informed sports decisions. We illustrate this data-driven decision recommendation for AS Roma player market in the Summer 2018 season, using the two separate databases of fourty-seven attributes taken from Football Manager 2018 for each of the twenty-four soccer player, with the first including players of the AS Roma squad 2017-18, and the second consisting of all players linked with transfer moves to AS Roma. This is high dimensional data as players should be grouped only in terms of their performance with respect to a small subset of attributes. Projective clustering analyses provide a purely data-driven analysis to identify critical attributes and attribute characteristics for a group of players to form a natural cluster (in lower dimensional data space) in an unsupervised way. By merging the two databases, our unsupervised clustering analysis provides evidence-based recommendations about the club team formation, and in particular, the decision to buy and sell players within the same clusters, under different scenarios including financial constraints.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it