Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data mining can be described as data processing using sophisticated data search capabilities and statistical algorithms to discover patterns and correlations in large pre-existing databases (Agrawal & Srikant 1995; Zhao & Sourav 2003). From these patterns, new and important information can be obtained that will lead to the discovery of new meanings which can then be translated into enhancements in many current fields. In this paper, we focus on the usability of sequential data mining algorithms. Based on a conducted user study, many of these algorithms are difficult to comprehend. Our goal is to make an interface that acts as a “tutor” to help the users understand better how data mining works. We consider two of the algorithms more commonly used by our students for discovering sequential patterns, namely the AprioriAll and the PrefixSpan algorithms. We hope to generate some educational value, such that the tool could be used as a teaching aid for comprehending data mining algorithms. We concentrated our effort to develop the user interface to be easy to use by naïve end users with minimum computer literacy; the interface is intended to be used by beginners. This will help in having a wider audience and users for the developed tool. Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".