Linguistic Models: Optimization With the Use of Conditional Fuzzy C-Means
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most fuzzy models are just numeric. In this study, we revisit, explore and augment a concept of linguistic models, viz., fuzzy models producing results that are information granules, and, specifically, intervals or fuzzy sets. The proposed architecture is formed by constructing a network of linked fuzzy sets (information granules) ininput and output spaces with the aid of a context-based Fuzzy C-Means clustering method. The user centricity of such clustering method is implied by the explicit formulation of fuzzy sets in the output space. The resulting information granules constructed in the input space are conditioned by the corresponding fuzzy sets in the output space. This arrangement can increase the interpretability of the model and represent the model as a collection of logically arranged associations among information granules. The model's overall design process is discussed along with a detailed algorithmic structure. Its experimental evaluations are provided by using both synthetic and publicly datasets. For the former, the model brings the performance improvement ranging from 91% to 250% over the models with information granules uniformly distributed in output space. For the latter, such improvement ranges from 6% to 94%. Finally, a thorough discussion is provided together with guidelines on how to develop such a linguistic model in different contexts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".