MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W76294416

Influence of clustering pre-processing on genetically generated fuzzy knowledge bases

2005· article· en· W76294416 on OpenAlex
Aleksander Przybyło, Sofiane Achiche, Marek Balazinski, Luc Baron

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisComputer scienceFuzzy clusteringData miningOutlierCURE data clustering algorithmData stream clusteringArtificial intelligenceCorrelation clusteringCanopy clustering algorithmNoise (video)Fuzzy logicMachine learningProcess (computing)Pattern recognition (psychology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic knowledge base generation using techniques such as genetic algorithms tend to be highly dependent on the quality and size of the learning data. First of all, large data sets can lead to unnecessary time loss, when smaller data sets could describe the problem as well. Second of all, the presence of noise and outliers can cause the learning algorithm to degenerate. Clustering techniques allow compressing and filtering the data, thus making the generation of fuzzy knowledge bases faster and more accurate. Different clustering algorithms are compared and the validation of the results through a theoretical 3D surface, shows that when compressing the data to 5% of its original size, clustering algorithms accelerate the learning process by up to 94%. Moreover, when the learning data contains noise and/or a large amount of outliers, clustering algorithms can make the results more stable and improve the fitness of the obtained FKBs.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · 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