Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of association rule mining was introduced in 1993 (Agrawal et al., 1993). Since then, it has been the subject of numerous studies. Most of these studies focused on either performance issues or functionality issues. The former considered how to compute association rules efficiently, whereas the latter considered what kinds of rules to compute. Examples of the former include the Apriori-based mining framework (Agrawal & Srikant, 1994), its performance enhancements (Park et al., 1997; Leung et al., 2002), and the tree-based mining framework (Han et al., 2000); examples of the latter include extensions of the initial notion of association rules to other rules such as dependence rules (Silverstein et al., 1998) and ratio rules (Korn et al., 1998). In general, most of these studies basically considered the data mining exercise in isolation. They did not explore how data mining can interact with the human user, which is a key component in the broader picture of knowledge discovery in databases. Hence, they provided little or no support for user focus. Consequently, the user usually needs to wait for a long period of time to get numerous association rules, out of which only a small fraction may be interesting to the user. In other words, the user often incurs a high computational cost that is disproportionate to what he wants to get. This calls for constraint-based association rule mining.
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 | 0.012 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
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".