Optimasi Penyusunan Koleksi Buku Dinas Perpustakaan Berdasarkan Pola Peminjaman dengan Metode Apriori
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A library is a facility or place that provides reading materials. Good book arrangement can help the library in obtaining good reading sources. The arrangement of library service book collections based on borrowing patterns, there is an alignment between user needs and the availability of reading materials available in the library. Analysis of book borrowing patterns provides valuable insights for library staff in determining the books that are most in demand and often needed by users. Data mining is defined as mining data or efforts to dig up valuable and useful information in a very large database. The most important thing in data mining techniques is the rule for finding high frequency patterns between sets of itemsets called Association Rules. The method used in this study is Apriori (Association Rule). This technique is used to find relationships or associations between items or variables in data. Well-known algorithms such as Apriori and Eclat are used to find association rules in transactional data. The purpose of this study is to find out library visitor data using the Apriori Algorithm method and to find out the application of data mining for compiling book collections based on borrowing patterns. The results of this study are the multiplication of support and confidence, choose the one with the largest multiplication result. The largest result of the multiplication of these multiplications is the rule used when borrowing books. Because the results of the multiplication of the 4 borrowings have the same value, all of them can be used as rules.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".