MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040021588 · doi:10.1145/3406601.3406602

Data Mining Methods for Optimizing Feature Extraction and Model Selection

2020· article· en· W3040021588 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Jovicic, Lu Wang, Leon Zucherman, Zahid Abul-Basher, Nipon Charoenkitkarn, Mark Chignell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMicrosoft (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData miningComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Feature selectionFeature extractionData extractionFeature (linguistics)Data modelingOn the flyMachine learningArtificial intelligenceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How can we carry out on-the-fly data mining on massive amounts of data, to make relevant predictions, based on data for similar observations to the one currently under consideration? In this paper we show the benefit of using large numbers of computationally efficient analyses to tune the feature extraction, and prediction, steps in data mining, using cross-validated prediction accuracy as the evaluative criterion. Different feature extraction strategies are also compared in terms of their predictive effectiveness in this context. While the research reported here focused on clinical prediction of healthcare outcomes, the results should have broader implications for large scale data mining in general.

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)0.001
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207