Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Traditional clustering partitions a group of objects into a number of nonoverlapping sets based on a similarity measure. In real world, the boundaries of these sets or clusters may not be clearly defined. Some of the objects may be almost equidistant from the center of multiple clusters. Traditional set theory mandates that these objects be assigned to a single cluster. Rough set theory can be used to represent the overlapping clusters. Rough sets provide more flexible representation than conventional sets, at the same time they are less descriptive than the fuzzy sets. This paper describes the basic concept of rough clustering based onk‐means, genetic algorithms, Kohonen self‐organizing maps, and support vector clustering. The discussion also includes a review of rough cluster validity measures, and applications of rough clustering to such diverse areas as forestry, medicine, medical imaging, web mining, super markets, and traffic engineering. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.WIREs Data Mining Knowl Discov2011 1 64‐72 DOI: 10.1002/widm.16 This article is categorized under: Technologies > Computational Intelligence Technologies > Machine Learning Technologies > Structure Discovery and Clustering
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.011 |
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".