Empirical Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms for Multiclass Prediction
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the emergence of big data and the interest in deriving valuable insights from ever‐growing and ever‐changing streams of data, machine learning has appeared as an effective data analytic technique as compared to traditional methodologies. Big data has become a source of incredible business value for almost every industry. In this context, machine learning plays an indispensable role of providing smart data analysis capabilities for uncovering hidden patterns. These patterns are later translated into automating certain aspects of the decision‐making processes using machine learning classifiers. This paper presents a state‐of‐the‐art comparative analysis of machine learning and deep learning‐based classifiers for multiclass prediction. The experimental setup consisted of 11 datasets derived from different domains, publicly available at the repositories of UCI and Kaggle. The classifiers include Naïve Bayes (NB), decision trees (DTs), random forest (RF), gradient boosted decision trees (GBDTs), and deep learning‐based convolutional neural networks (CNN). The results prove that the ensemble‐based GBDTs outperform other algorithms in terms of accuracy, precision, and recall. RF and CNN show nearly similar performance on most datasets and outperform the traditional NB and DTs. On the other hand, NB shows the lowest performance as compared to other algorithms. It is worth mentioning that DTs show the lowest precision score on the Titanic dataset. One of the main reasons is that DTs suffer from overfitting and use a greedy approach for attribute relationship analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it