MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241015129 · doi:10.1080/18756891.2011.9727760

Experimental Comparison of Iterative Versus Evolutionary Crisp and Rough Clustering

2011· article· en· W4241015129 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisMedoidRough setData miningComputer scienceSelf-organizing mapk-medoidsSet (abstract data type)Genetic algorithmAlgorithmCanopy clustering algorithmCorrelation clusteringPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers have proposed several Genetic Algorithm (GA) based crisp clustering algorithms. Rough clustering based on Genetic Algorithms, Kohonen Self-Organizing Maps, K-means algorithm are also reported in literature. Recently, researchers have combined GAs with iterative rough clustering algorithms such as K-means and K-Medoids. Use of GAs makes it possible to specify explicit optimization of cluster validity measures. However, it can result in additional computing time. In this paper we compare results obtained using K-means, GA K-means, rough K-means, GA rough K-means and GA rough K-medoid algorithms. We experimented with a synthetic data set, a real world data set, and a standard dataset using a total within cluster variation, average precision, and execution time required as the criteria for comparison.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.275 · 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