MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247582225 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14648265.v1

k-MACE Clustering for Gaussian Clusters

2021· preprint· en· W4247582225 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Wyndel Nidoy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Clustering Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaceCluster analysisPreprocessorComputer scienceMathematicsGaussianCluster (spacecraft)AlgorithmCovarianceStatisticsArtificial intelligencePhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional clustering approaches require a preprocessing step that estimates the correct number of cluster prior to the cluster center allocation step. In these approaches, the preprocessing step minimizes one objective function while the second step concentrates on optimization of another objective function. Inspired by MACE-means, we use a single objective function to simultaneously estimate the Correct Number of Cluster (CNC) and acquire the cluster centers. Similarly, we use the Average Central Error (ACE) as ourcost function. The proposed method, denoted by k-minimum ACE (k-MACE), improves MACE-means by rigorous calculation of probabilistic estimate of ACE. While MACE-means (Minimum ACE) only concentrates on Independent Indentically Distributed (IID) clusters, k 􀀀 MACE is a solution for Gaussian clusters with any covariance structure. Simulation results show superiority of k 􀀀 MACE over MACE means and over conven- tional clustering methods such as G-means, DBSCAN, and validity indices methods such as Calinkski Harabaz, Silhoutte, and gap index. Performance is evaluated in terms of

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Clustering Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207