COMPARISON OF KNN, NAIVE BAYES, DECISION TREE, ENSEMBLE, REGRESSION METHODS FOR INCOME PREDICTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the income classification dataset, we performed data analysis with the help of data mining to gather interesting information from the available data. Currently, data processing can be done using many tools. One of the tools that we use for data processing is the orange application. By using the dataset we looked at the welfare level ranging from marital status, school, gender, and from all fields related to income ranging from sales, to daily life to find out the income earned by employees or workers from several countries such as the United States, Cambodia, United Kingdom, Puerto-Rico, Canada, Germany, Outer US (Guam-USVI-etc). The purpose of this analysis is to determine the hourly income in one week that can affect the income classification. The classification technique uses various classification models, namely the K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) algorithm model, Naïve Bayes, Decision Tree, Esemble Method and Linear Regression algorithm. The results of the analysis based on the test results of various algorithm models can be concluded that the best algorithm model for measuring workers' income is to use the Naive Bayes Decision. Analysis of variables based on Hours-per-Week and Capital-Gain affects Income Classification which determines whether the income earned is more than 50 thousand/50 K and the analysis results in a prediction of a person's income level.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".