MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989849422 · doi:10.4018/ijdwm.2020010101

Mining Integrated Sequential Patterns From Multiple Databases

2019· article· en· W2989849422 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

VenueInternational Journal of Data Warehousing and Mining · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphRoyal Bank of CanadaUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTupleSequence (biology)Database transactionSequence databaseData miningGSP AlgorithmTable (database)DatabasePosition (finance)Association rule learningApriori algorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing work on multiple databases (MDBs) sequential pattern mining cannot mine frequent sequences to answer exact and historical queries from MDBs having different table structures. This article proposes the transaction id frequent sequence pattern (TidFSeq) algorithm to handle the difficult problem of mining frequent sequences from diverse MDBs. The TidFSeq algorithm transforms candidate 1-sequences to get transaction subsequences where candidate 1-sequences occurred as (1-sequence, itssubsequenceidlist) tuple or (1-sequence, position id list). Subsequent frequent i-sequences are computed using the counts of the sequence ids in each candidate i-sequence position id list tuples. An extended version of the general sequential pattern (GSP)-like candidate generates and a frequency count approach is used for computing supports of itemset (I-step) and separate (S-step) sequences without repeated database scans but with transaction ids. Generated patterns answer complex queries from MDBs. The TidFSeq algorithm has a faster processing time than existing 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.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

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 communication0.0000.002
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.250 · 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