MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994216348 · doi:10.1145/3361149.3361150

Incremental analysis in machine learning

2019· article· en· W2994216348 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Weiß, Steven Muegge, Ali Nazari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Stream Mining Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supervised learning requires data to be labeled. However, labels may not always be available, or creating a labeled dataset may be costly. Even when the data is labeled, labeling is often inconsistent, incomplete and inaccurate. If the data changes over time, a model also needs to be retrained periodically. A machine learning model, therefore, needs to learn from data "in the wild", not just from an initial training dataset. This problem can be addressed by techniques that combine clustering and classification with user feedback. The paper describes one such technique in the form of a pattern: Incremental Analysis. The target audience includes developers who do not have much experience with using machine learning in dynamic environments. This is the first of a number of planned papers on patterns for machine learning.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Stream Mining TechniquesFrench-language works237,207