2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2012.06.135
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Empirical Comparison of Sampling Strategies for Classification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 5 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The data has 10 classes: cytosolic or cytoskeletal, nuclear, mitochondrial, membrane protein, no N-terminal signal, membrane protein-uncleaved, membrane protein-cleaved signal, extracellular, vacuolar, peroxisomal, endoplasmic reticulum lumen. The research in clustering Yeast Dataset is extensively active in recent years [35][36][37] to improve the clustering accuracy. KFCM 29 clustering results based on 10 classes in yeast data are plotted in Fig.…”
Section: Experimental Results On Yeast Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The data has 10 classes: cytosolic or cytoskeletal, nuclear, mitochondrial, membrane protein, no N-terminal signal, membrane protein-uncleaved, membrane protein-cleaved signal, extracellular, vacuolar, peroxisomal, endoplasmic reticulum lumen. The research in clustering Yeast Dataset is extensively active in recent years [35][36][37] to improve the clustering accuracy. KFCM 29 clustering results based on 10 classes in yeast data are plotted in Fig.…”
Section: Experimental Results On Yeast Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%