MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimal Training Data Selection in Active Learning for Discrimination and Classification

2020· article· en· W3036503133 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2020 5th International Conference on Computer and Communication Systems (ICCCS) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningClassifier (UML)Active learning (machine learning)Monte Carlo methodLearning classifier systemPattern recognition (psychology)Unsupervised learningMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Active learning has become a popular learning process for classification. By selecting the most beneficial training data, an active classifier achieves better classification accuracy than a passive classifier. We investigate the methods of developing two different types of optimal active learning processes, via either estimated discriminant functions or logistic regression. A comparison study is presented for the classifiers obtained by these methods. Performance of proposed active classifiers is evaluated under various conditions and assumptions. Optimal two-stage active learning is provided. Monte Carlo simulations have shown improved classification accuracy of our proposed active learning processes compared to passive learning process for all scenarios considered, with up to 10% accuracy improvement.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.164 · 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