MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403905393 · doi:10.59934/jaiea.v4i1.632

Application of the Apriori Algorithm to Analyze the Correlation of Underage Marriage Factors

2024· article· en· W4403905393 on OpenAlexaff
Rizki Tri Ipanda, Akim Manaor Hara Pardede, Melda Pita Uli Sitompul

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer churn and segmentation
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApriori algorithmCorrelationComputer scienceA priori and a posterioriAssociation rule learningData miningPsychologyAlgorithmMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to analyze the correlation between various factors contributing to underage marriage in Kota Binjai. The primary variables influencing underage marriage include economic, social, cultural, parental, and educational factors. These five variables are considered significant in the prevalence of underage marriage within the Kota Binjai community. The methodology employed involves data mining techniques using the Apriori algorithm to identify the most frequently occurring data correlations. The analysis reveals that the best rule with 2 itemsets has a support of 42.7% and a confidence of 69.6%, while the best rule with 3 itemsets has a support of 26.7% and a confidence of 71.4%. For 4 itemsets, the support is 12% with a confidence of 50%. These findings indicate that economic factors are the most frequently appearing and consistently influential in the decision of Kota Binjai residents to engage in underage marriage, both independently and in combination with social, cultural, and parental influence factors

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA)Same topicCustomer churn and segmentationFrench-language works237,207