Bibliographic record
Abstract
A ‘traditional’ learning algorithm that can induce a set of decision rules usually represents a robust and comprehensive system that discovers a knowledge from usually large datasets. We call this discipline Data Mining (DM). Any classifier, expert system, or generally a decision-supporting system can then utilize this decision set to derive a decision (prediction) about given problems, observations, diagnostics. DM can be defined as a nontrivial process of identifying valid, novel, and ultimately understandable knowledge in data. It is understood that DM as a multidisciplinary activity points to the overall process of determining a useful knowledge from databases, i.e. extracting highlevel knowledge from low-level data in the context of large databases. A rule-inducing learning algorithm may yield either an ordered or unordered set of decision rules. The latter seems to be more understandable by humans and directly applicable in most expert systems or decisionsupporting ones. However, classification utilizing the unordered-mode decision rules may be accompanied by some conflict situations, particularly when several rules belonging to different classes match (‘fire’ for) an input to-be-classified (unseen) object. One of the possible solutions to this conflict is to associate each decision rule induced by a learning algorithm with a numerical factor which is commonly called the rule quality. The chapter first surveys empirical and statistical formulas of the rule quality and compares their characteristics. Statistical tools such as contingency tables, rule consistency, completeness, quality, measures of association, measures of agreement are introduced as suitable vehicles for depicting a behaviour of a decision rule. After that, a very brief theoretical methodology for defining rule qualities is acquainted. The chapter then concludes by analysis of the formulas for rule qualities, and exhibits a list of future trends in this discipline.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".