Selecting and Combining Classifiers Based on Centrality Measures
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
Centrality measures have been helping to explain the behavior of objects, given their relation, in a wide variety of problems, since sociology to chemistry. This work considers these measures to assess the importance of every classifier belonging to an ensemble of classifiers, aiming to improve a Multiple Classifier System (MCS). Assessing the classifier’s importance by employing centrality measures, inspired two different approaches: one for selecting classifiers and another for fusion. The selection approach, called Centrality Based Selection (CBS), adopts a trade-off between the classifier’s accuracy and their diversity. The sub-optimal selected subset presents good results against selection methods from the literature, being superior in 67.22% of the cases. The second approach, the integration, is named Centrality Based Fusion (CBF). This approach is a weighted combination method, which is superior to literature in 70% of the cases.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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