Bibliographic record
Abstract
Operational data is always huge. A preprocessing step is needed to prepare such data for the analytical process so the process will be fast. One way is by choosing the most effective features and removing the others. Feature selection algorithms (FSAs) can do that with a variety of accuracy depending on both the nature of the data and the algorithm itself. This inspires researchers to keep on developing new FSAs to give higher accuracies than the existing ones. Moreover, FSAs are essential for reducing the cost and effort of developing information system applications. Merging multiple methodologies may improve the dimensionality reduction rate retaining sensible accuracy. This research proposed a hybrid feature selection algorithm based on ScC and forward selection methods (ScCFS). ScC is based on stability and correlation while forward selection is based on Random Forest (RF) and Information Gain (IG). A lowered subset generated by ScC is fed to the forward selection method which uses the IG as a decision criterion for selecting the attribute to split the node of the RF to generate the optimal reduct. ScCFS was compared to other known FSAs in terms of accuracy, AUC, and F-score using several classification algorithms and several datasets. Results showed that the ScCFS excels other FSAs employed for all classifiers in terms of accuracy except FLM where it comes in second place. This proves that ScCFS is the pioneer in generating the reduced dataset with remaining high accuracies for the classifiers used.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".