MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937809414

Efficient frequent pattern mining from big data and its applications

2014· dissertation· en· W2937809414 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Fan Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsBig dataData miningData scienceComputer scienceInformation retrieval
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frequent pattern mining is an important research areas in data mining. Since its introduction, it has drawn attention of many researchers. Consequently, many algorithms have been proposed. Popular algorithms include level-wise Apriori based algorithms, tree based algorithms, and hyperlinked array structure based algorithms. While these algorithms are popular and beneficial due to some nice properties, they also suffer from some drawbacks such as multiple database scans, recursive tree constructions, or multiple hyperlink adjustments. In the current era of big data, high volumes of a wide variety of valuable data of different veracities can be easily collected or generated at high velocity in various real-life applications. Among these 5V's of big data, I focus on handling high volumes of big data in my Ph.D. thesis. Specifically, I design and implement a new efficient frequent pattern mining algorithmic technique called B-mine, which overcomes some of the aforementioned drawbacks and achieves better performance when compared with existing algorithms. I also extend my B-mine algorithm into a family of algorithms that can perform big data mining efficiently. Moreover, I design four different frameworks that apply this family of algorithms to the real-life application of social network mining. Evaluation results show the efficiency and practicality of all these algorithms.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207