Proximity-Graph-Based Tools for DNA Clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clustering is considered the most important aspect of unsupervised learning in data mining. It deals with finding structure in a collection of unlabeled data. One simple way of defining clustering is as follows: the process of organizing data elements into groups, called clusters, whose members are similar to each other in some way. Several algorithms for clustering exist (Gan, Ma, & Wu, 2007); proximity-graph-based ones, which are untraditional from the point of view of statisticians, emanate from the field of computational geometry and are powerful and often elegant (Bhattacharya, Mukherjee, & Toussaint, 2005). A proximity graph is a graph formed from a collection of elements, or points, by connecting with an edge those pairs of points that satisfy a particular neighbor relationship with each other. One key aspect of proximity-graph-based clustering techniques is that they may allow for an easy and clear visualization of data clusters, given their geometric nature. Proximity graphs have been shown to improve typical instance-based learning algorithms such as the k-nearest neighbor classifiers in the typical nonparametric approach to classification (Bhattacharya, Mukherjee, & Toussaint, 2005). Furthermore, the most powerful and robust methods for clustering turn out to be those based on proximity graphs (Koren, North, & Volinsky, 2006). Many examples have been shown where proximity-graph-based methods perform very well when traditional methods fail miserably (Zahn, 1971; Choo, Jiamthapthaksin, Chen, Celepcikay, Giusti, & Eick, 2007).
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.016 |
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".