Impact of Dataset Scaling on Hierarchical Clustering: A Comparative Analysis of Distance-Based and Ratio-Based Methods
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
In this study, the distance-based agglomerative hierarchical clustering techniques were compared to a ratio-based approach. Two real datasets, which were also used in a prior study by Roux (2018), were considered. Firstly, it was observed that the type of scaling applied to the datasets was found to affect the results of hierarchical clustering. Thus, various scaling methods were employed prior to implementing hierarchical clustering. Furthermore, two rank-based goodness-of-fit measures were used to evaluate the hierarchical clustering methods. In contrast to Roux (2018) findings, it was observed that the distance-based methods, such as Median linkage, Average linkage, and centroid linkage, performed better than the ratio-based method. The ratio-based methods also showed issues with branch crossing in the hierarchical clustering dendrogram. Consequently, this study illustrates that, with appropriate dataset scaling, the distance-based methods outperform ratio-based methods in terms of goodness-of-fit measures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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