Data on cut-edge for spatial clustering based on proximity graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cluster analysis plays a significant role regarding automating such a knowledge discovery process in spatial data mining. A good clustering algorithm supports two essential conditions, namely high intra-cluster similarity and low inter-cluster similarity. Maximized intra-cluster/within-cluster similarity produces low distances between data points inside the same cluster. However, minimized inter-cluster/between-cluster similarity increases the distance between data points in different clusters by furthering them apart from each other. We previously presented a spatial clustering algorithm, abbreviated CutESC (Cut-Edge for Spatial Clustering) with a graph-based approach. The data presented in this article is related to and supportive to the research paper entitled "CutESC: Cutting edge spatial clustering technique based on proximity graphs" (Aksac et al., 2019) [1], where interpretation research data presented here is available. In this article, we share the parametric version of our algorithm named CutESC-P, the best parameter settings for the experiments, the additional analyses and some additional information related to the proposed algorithm (CutESC) in [1].
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 | 0.002 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".