Knowledgebase approximation using association rule aggregation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper introduces knowledgebase approximation and fusion using association rules aggregation as a means to facilitate accelerated insight induction from high-dimensional and disparate knowledgebases. There are two typical observations that make approximating knowledgebases of interest: (1) it is quite often that insights can be derived based from a partial set of the samples, and not necessarily from all of them; and (2) generally speaking, it is rare that the knowledge of interest is contained in one knowledgebase, but rather distributed among a disparate set of unidentical knowledgebases. As a matter of fact, the insights derivable from knowledgebases tend to be uncertain, even if they were to be derived from a wholistic analysis of the knowledgebase. Thus, optimal knowledgebase approximation may yield the computational efficiency benefit without necessarily compromising insight accuracy. This paper presents a novel method to approximate a set of knowledgebases based on association rule aggregation using the disjunctive pooling rule. We show that this method can reduce insight discovery time while maintaining approximation accuracy within a desirable level.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".