The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Monte Carlo Study of Thirty Internal Criterion Measures for Cluster Analysis
Abstract
A Monte Carlo evaluation of thirty internal criterion measures for cluster analysis was conducted. Artificial data sets were constructed with clusters which exhibited the properties of internal cohesion and external isolation. The data sets were analyzed by four hierarchical clustering methods. The resulting values of the internal criteria were compared with two external criterion indices which determined the degree of recovery of correct cluster structure by the algorithms. The results indicated that a subset of internal criterion measures could be identified which appear to be valid indices of correct cluster recovery. Indices from this subset could form the basis of a permutation test for the existence of cluster structure or a clustering algorithm.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
NbClust : An R Package for Determining the Relevant Number of Clusters in a Data Set
Charrad, M., Ghazzali, N., Boiteau, V., & Niknafs, A. (2014) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v061.i06 · Cited by 3,396
Dynamics of firm financial evolution and bankruptcy prediction
du Jardin, P. (2017) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2017.01.016 · Cited by 103
Dalenberg, C. J., Glaser, D., & Alhassoon, O. M. (2012) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.21926 · Cited by 50
Major depression, minor depression, and double depression: are they distinct clinical entities?
Remick, R. A., Sadovnick, A. D., Lam, R. W., Zis, A. P., & Yee, I. M. L. (1996) · American Journal of Medical Genetics · doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-8628(19960726)67:4<347::aid-ajmg6>3.0.co;2-j
Metadata
- Authors
- Milligan, G. W.
- Venue
- Psychometrika
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1981-06
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 187-199
- ISSN
- 0033-3123 (ISSN-L)
- 1860-0980
- OpenAlex
- W2049814849
- Cited by
- 407
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
