Simple Measures of Individual Cluster-Membership Certainty for Hard Partitional Clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose two probability-like measures of individual cluster-membership certainty which can be applied to a hard partition of the sample such as that obtained from the Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) algorithm, hierarchical clustering or k-means clustering. One measure extends the individual silhouette widths and the other is obtained directly from the pairwise dissimilarities in the sample. Unlike the classic silhouette, however, the measures behave like probabilities and can be used to investigate an individual's tendency to belong to a cluster. We also suggest two possible ways to evaluate the hard partition. We evaluate the performance of both measures in individuals with ambiguous cluster membership, using simulated binary datasets that have been partitioned by the PAM algorithm or continuous datasets that have been partitioned by hierarchical clustering and k-means clustering. For comparison, we also present results from soft clustering algorithms such as soft analysis clustering (FANNY) and two model-based clustering methods. Our proposed measures perform comparably to the posterior-probability estimators from either FANNY or the model-based clustering methods. We also illustrate the proposed measures by applying them to Fisher's classic iris data set.
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 | 0.022 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".