Data mining using L-fuzzy concept analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Association rules in data mining are implications between attributes of objects that hold in all instances of the given data. These rules are very useful to determine the properties of the data such as essential features of products that determine the purchase decisions of customers. Normally the data is given as binary (or crisp) tables relating objects with their attributes by yes-no entries. We propose a relational theory for generating attribute implications from many-valued contexts, i.e, where the relationship between objects and attributes is given by a range of degrees from no to yes. This degree is usually taken from a suitable lattice where the smallest element corresponds to the classical no and the greatest element corresponds to the classical yes. Previous related work handled many-valued contexts by transforming the context by scaling or by choosing a minimal degree of membership to a crisp (yes-no) context. Then the standard methods of formal concept analysis were applied to this crisp context. In our proposal, we will handle a many-valued context as is, i.e., without transforming it into a crisp one. The advantage of this approach is that we work with the original data without performing a transformation step which modifies the data in advance.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".