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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Concise and unambiguous assessment of a machine learning algorithm is key to classifier design and performance improvement. In the multi-class classification task, where each instance can only be labeled as one class, the confusion matrix is a powerful tool for performance assessment by quantifying the classification overlap. However, in the multi-label classification task, where each instance can be labeled with more than one class, the confusion matrix is undefined. Performance assessment of the multi-label classifier is currently based on calculating performance averages, such as hamming loss, precision, recall, and F-score. While the current assessment techniques present a reasonable representation of each class and overall performance, their aggregate nature results in ambiguity when identifying false negative ( FN ) and false positive ( FP ) results. To address this gap, we define a method of creating the multi-label confusion matrix (MLCM) based on three proposed categories of multi-label problems. After establishing the shortcomings of current methods for identifying FN and FP , we demonstrate the usage of the MLCM with the classification of two publicly available multi-label data sets: i) a 12-lead ECG data set with nine classes, and ii) a movie poster data set with eighteen classes. A comparison of the MLCM results against statistics from the current techniques is presented to show the effectiveness in providing a concise and unambiguous understanding of a multi-label classifier behavior. </p>
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 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 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it