As the note is saying, you should not use this approach to evaluate your model. You should use cross_val_score instead.
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 04:30, charujing123 <charujing...@163.com> wrote: > hi > this function is exactly what i wanted. However, the description of this > function contained this: Passing these predictions into an evaluation > metric may not be a valid way to measure generalization performance. > Could i use this prediction to calculate the accuracy? I am not sure after > seeing this sentence. > Thanks. > > 2019-08-13 > ------------------------------ > charujing123 > ------------------------------ > > *发件人：*Guillaume Lemaître <g.lemaitr...@gmail.com> > *发送时间：*2019-08-12 23:16 > *主题：*Re: [scikit-learn] Predictive probability from cross_validate > *收件人：*"Scikit-learn mailing list"<scikit-learn@python.org> > *抄送：* > > cross_validate should not be used to make predictions but to evaluate the > performance, the parameter, etc of models. > You probably want to check cross_val_predict to get the prediction. > However, be aware of what it involves: > > https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/cross_validation.html#obtaining-predictions-by-cross-validation > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 16:57, Rujing Zha <charujing...@163.com> wrote: > >> >> Hi >> How to acquire the probability in the cross_validate function? >> Thanks >> Rujing >> >> >> >> -- >> 发自我的网易邮箱手机智能版 >> >> >> >> 在 2019-08-05 22:31:38，"Andreas Mueller" <t3k...@gmail.com> 写道： >> >> As usual, I agree ;) >> I think it would be good to call out particularly important bugfixes so >> they get reviews. >> We might also want to think about how we can organize the issue tracker >> better. >> >> Having more full-time people on the project certainly means more activity >> but ideally we can use some of that time to make the issue tracker more >> organized. >> >> >> On 8/5/19 9:21 AM, Joel Nothman wrote: >> >> Yay for technology! Awesome to see you all and have some matters >> clarified. >> >> Adrin is right that the issue tracker is increasingly overwhelming >> (because there are more awesome people hired to work on the project, more >> frequent sprints, etc). This meeting is a useful summary. >> >> The meeting mostly focussed on big features. We should be careful to not >> leave behind important bugs fixes and work originating outside the core >> devs. >> >> Despite that: Some of Guillaume's activities got cut off. I think it >> would be great to progress both on stacking and resampling before the next >> release. >> >> I also think these meetings should, as a standing item, note the >> estimated upcoming release schedule, to help us remain aware of that >> cadence. >> >> Good night! >> >> J >> >> _______________________________________________ >> scikit-learn mailing >> listscikit-learn@python.orghttps://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> scikit-learn mailing list >> scikit-learn@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn >> > > > -- > Guillaume Lemaitre > INRIA Saclay - Parietal team > Center for Data Science Paris-Saclay > https://glemaitre.github.io/ > > _______________________________________________ > scikit-learn mailing list > scikit-learn@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn > -- Guillaume Lemaitre INRIA Saclay - Parietal team Center for Data Science Paris-Saclay https://glemaitre.github.io/
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
