MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392846249 · doi:10.1145/3625007.3627334

Social network mining and analytics for quantitative patterns

2023· article· en· W4392846249 on OpenAlexafffund
Connor C.J. Hryhoruk, Carson K. Leung, Adam G.M. Pazdor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceAnalyticsData scienceSocial network analysisSocial network (sociolinguistics)World Wide WebSocial media

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frequent pattern mining has gained popularity in the realm of knowledge discovery and big data analytics as it identifies sets of items that frequently co-occur (e.g., popular merchandise items or social events). In general, frequent pattern mining can be broadly classified into two categories: (i) transaction-centric algorithms that mines frequent patterns horizontally and (ii) item-centric mining algorithms that mines frequent patterns vertically. Irrespective of their categories, traditional frequent pattern mining algorithms aim to find Boolean frequent patterns, revealing whether some specific items are present in (or absent from) the discovered patterns. In the context of social network mining and analytics, Boolean frequent pattern algorithms can help reveal whether a social entity follows another in a network or on a social networking site. However, in numerous real-life applications, quantities of items within patterns become essential. For example, the quantity of followed items (e.g., like posts) can significantly influence the social interactions between entities in a network. In this paper, we present a social network mining and analytics algorithm---called QSN---for discovering quantitative frequent patterns from social networks. The algorithm represents the big data as a collection of item-centric bitmaps, each capturing the absence or presence of a transaction containing the item, along with the quantity of that item in each transaction. Subsequently, it vertically mines quantitative frequent patterns, strategically avoiding the generation of an excessive number of redundant candidate patterns, thereby accelerating the mining process. Results of our evaluation demonstrate the superiority of our QSN algorithm over the existing horizontal quantitative frequent pattern algorithm called MQA-M, highlighting its efficacy in social network mining and analytics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207