Improving the Classification Ability of Delegating Classifiers Using Different Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer Classification & Prediction Is Vitally Important for Cancer Diagnosis. DNA Microarray Technology Has Provided Genetic Data That Has Facilitated Scientists Perform Cancer Research. Traditional Methods of Classification Have Certain Limitations E.G. Traditionally A Proposed DSS Uses A Single Classifier at A Time for Classification or Prediction Purposes. To Increase Classification Accuracy, Reject Option Classifiers Has Been Proposed in Machine Learning Literature. In A Reject Option Classifier, A Rejection Region Is Defined and The Samples Fall in That Region Are Not Classified by The Classifier. The Unclassifiable Samples Are Rejected by Classifier in Order to Improve Classifier’s Accuracy. However, These Rejections Affect the Prediction Rate of The Classifier as Well. To Overcome the Problem of Low Prediction Rates by Increased Rejection of Samples by A Single Classifier, the “Delegating Classifiers” Provide Better Accuracy at Less Rejection Rate. Different Classifiers Such as Support Vector Machine (SVM), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), K Nearest Neighbor (KNN) Etc. Have Been Proposed. Moreover, Traditionally, Same Learner Is Used As “Delegated” And “Delegating” Classifier. This Research Has Investigated the Effects of Using Different Machine Learning Classifiers in Both of The Delegated and Delegating Classifiers, And the Results Obtained Showed That Proposed Method Gives High Accuracy and Increases the Prediction Rate.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".