An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model
- Authors
- Gilles CeleuxGilda Soromenho
- Journal
- Journal of Classification
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1007/bf01246098 →Countries where authors are citing An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model
This map shows the geographic impact of An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model more than expected).
Fields of papers citing An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model
This network shows the impact of An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model.
About An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model
This paper, published in 1996, received 1.7k indexed citations . Written by Gilles Celeux and Gilda Soromenho covering the research area of Artificial Intelligence and Statistics and Probability. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Clinical Psychology (512 citations), Sociology and Political Science (305 citations) and Social Psychology (268 citations). Published in Journal of Classification.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1007/bf01246098.