MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046538498 · doi:10.1109/tcyb.2020.2965967

A Two-Stage Approach for Constructing Type-2 Information Granules

2020· article· en· W3046538498 on OpenAlexaff
Xiubin Zhu, Witold Pedrycz, Zhiwu Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicModeling, Simulation, and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaRecruitment Program of Global ExpertsNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGranular computingGranularityCluster analysisComputer scienceHierarchyData miningType (biology)Key (lock)SuiteFuzzy logicHierarchical clusteringTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceRough setGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we are concerned with the formation of type-2 information granules in a two-stage approach. We present a comprehensive algorithmic framework which gives rise to information granules of a higher type (type-2, to be specific) such that the key structure of the local granular data, their topologies, and their diversities become fully reflected and quantified. In contrast to traditional collaborative clustering where local structures (information granules) are obtained by running algorithms on the local datasets and communicating findings across sites, we propose a way of characterizing granular data (formed) by forming a suite of higher type information granules to reveal an overall structure of a collection of locally available datasets. Information granules built at the lower level on a basis of local sources of data are weighted by the number of data they represent while the information granules formed at the higher level of hierarchy are more abstract and general, thus facilitating a formation of a hierarchical description of data realized at different levels of detail. The construction of information granules is completed by resorting to fuzzy clustering algorithms (more specifically, the well-known Fuzzy C-Means). In the formation of information granules, we follow the fundamental principle of granular computing, viz., the principle of justifiable granularity. Experimental studies concerning selected publicly available machine-learning datasets are reported.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CyberneticsSame topicModeling, Simulation, and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207