Multi-objective of wind-driven optimization as feature selection and clustering to enhance text clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Text Clustering consists of grouping objects of similar categories. The initial centroids influence operation of the system with the potential to become trapped in local optima. The second issue pertains to the impact of a huge number of features on the determination of optimal initial centroids. The problem of dimensionality may be reduced by feature selection. Therefore, Wind Driven Optimization (WDO) was employed as Feature Selection to reduce the unimportant words from the text. In addition, the current study has integrated a novel clustering optimization technique called the WDO (Wasp Swarm Optimization) to effectively determine the most suitable initial centroids. The result showed the new meta-heuristic which is WDO was employed as the multi-objective first time as unsupervised Feature Selection (WDOFS) and the second time as a Clustering algorithm (WDOC). For example, the WDOC outperformed Harmony Search and Particle Swarm in terms of F-measurement by 93.3%; in contrast, text clustering's performance improves 0.9% because of using suggested clustering on the proposed feature selection. With WDOFS more than 50 percent of features have been removed from the other examination of features. The best result got the multi-objectives with F-measurement 98.3%.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".