Data on cut-edge for spatial clustering based on proximity graphs
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| 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