Locally-Scaled Kernels and Confidence Voting
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
Classification, the task of discerning the class of an unlabeled data point using information from a set of labeled data points, is a well-studied area of machine learning with a variety of approaches. Many of these approaches are closely linked to the selection of metrics or the generalizing of similarities defined by kernels. These metrics or similarity measures often require their parameters to be tuned in order to achieve the highest accuracy for each dataset. For example, an extensive search is required to determine the value of K or the choice of distance metric in K-NN classification. This paper explores a method of kernel construction that when used in classification performs consistently over a variety of datasets and does not require the parameters to be tuned. Inspired by dimensionality reduction techniques (DRT), we construct a kernel-based similarity measure that captures the topological structure of the data. This work compares the accuracy of K-NN classifiers, computed with specific operating parameters that obtain the highest accuracy per dataset, to a single trial of the here-proposed kernel classifier with no specialized parameters on standard benchmark sets. The here-proposed kernel used with simple classifiers has comparable accuracy to the ‘best-case’ K-NN classifiers without requiring the tuning of operating parameters.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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