A framework for efficent association rule mining in XML data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Abstract]: In this paper, we propose a framework, called XAR-Miner, for mining ARs from XML documents efficiently. In XAR-Miner, raw data in the XML document are first preprocessed to transform to either an Indexed XML Tree (IX-tree) or Multi-relational Databases (Multi-DB), depending on the size of XML document and memory constraint of the system, for efficient data selection and AR mining. Concepts that are relevant to the AR mining task are generalized to produce generalized \nmeta-patterns. A suitable metric is devised for measuring the degree of concept generalization in order to prevent under-generalization or over-generalization. Resulting generalized meta-patterns are used to generate large ARs that meet the support and confidence levels. A greedy algorithm is also presented to integrate data selection and large itemset generation to enhance the efficiency of \nthe AR mining process. The experiments conducted show that XAR-Miner is more efficient in performing a large number of AR mining tasks from XML documents than the state-of-the-art method of repetitively scanning through XML documents in order to perform each of the mining tasks.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".