Double-Quantitative Feature Selection Approach for Multigranularity Ordered Decision Systems
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
Double-quantitative-based granular computing implies the systematic perspective, completeness, and accuracy of rough approximation. However, most of the existing research works only focus on the case of single quantification, and there are few research study on the simultaneous computing method of double quantification. In this article, we explore feature selection with double quantification in multigranularity ordered decision systems (MG-ODSs). First, the related concepts of quantitative functions are interpreted from different viewpoints of relative and absolute quantification. Then, the multigranularity double-quantitative rough sets in an ordered decision system (ODS) from optimistic and pessimistic cases, the related properties, and three-way decisions based on the presented quantitative levels are discussed. Furthermore, the greedy algorithm for feature selection is derived. By using 12 datasets from a public repository, evaluations and comparisons are made on the parameter setting and classification accuracy. From these comparative experiments, the advantages and effectiveness of the proposed feature selection algorithm could be demonstrated over the existing approaches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it