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
The task of anomaly detection in data is one of the main challenges in data science because of the wide plethora of applications and despite a spectrum of available methods. Unfortunately, many of anomaly detection schemes are still imperfect i.e., they are not effective enough or act in a non-intuitive way or they are focused on a specific type of data. In this study, the classical method of Isolation Forest is thoroughly analyzed and augmented by bringing an innovative approach. This is k-Means-Based Isolation Forest that allows to build a search tree based on many branches in contrast to the only two considered in the original method. k-Means clustering is used to predict the number of divisions on each decision tree node. As supported through experimental studies, the proposed method works effectively for data coming from various application areas including intermodal transport and geographical, spatio-temporal data. In addition, it enables a user to intuitively determine the anomaly score for an individual record of the analyzed dataset. The advantage of the proposed method is that it is able to fit the data at the step of decision tree building. Moreover, it returns more intuitively appealing anomaly score values.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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