DPDRC, a Novel Machine Learning Method about the Decision Process for Dimensionality Reduction before Clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the critical decision process of reducing the dimensionality of a dataset before applying a clustering algorithm. It is always a challenge to choose between extracting or selecting features. It is not obvious to evaluate the importance of the features since the most popular methods to do it are usually intended for a supervised learning technique process. This paper proposes a novel method called “Decision Process for Dimensionality Reduction before Clustering” (DPDRC). It chooses the best dimensionality reduction method (selection or extraction) according to the data scientist’s parameters and the profile of the data, aiming to apply a clustering process at the end. It uses a Feature Ranking Process Based on Silhouette Decomposition (FRSD) algorithm, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) algorithm, and a K-means algorithm along with its metric, the Silhouette Index (SI). This paper presents five scenarios based on different parameters. This research also aims to discuss the impacts, advantages, and disadvantages of each choice that can be made in this unsupervised learning process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".