Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Survey is one of the common data acquisition methods for data mining (Brin, Rastogi & Shim, 2003). In data mining one can rarely find a survey data set that contains complete entries of each observation for all of the variables. Commonly, surveys and questionnaires are often only partially completed by respondents. The possible reasons for incomplete data could be numerous, including negligence, deliberate avoidance for privacy, ambiguity of the survey question, and aversion. The extent of damage of missing data is unknown when it is virtually impossible to return the survey or questionnaires to the data source for completion, but is one of the most important parts of knowledge for data mining to discover. In fact, missing data is an important debatable issue in the knowledge engineering field (Tseng, Wang, & Lee, 2003). In mining a survey database with incomplete data, patterns of the missing data as well as the potential impacts of these missing data on the mining results constitute valuable knowledge. For instance, a data miner often wishes to know how reliable a data mining result is, if only the complete data entries are used; when and why certain types of values are often missing; what variables are correlated in terms of having missing values at the same time; what reason for incomplete data is likely, etc. These valuable pieces of knowledge can be discovered only after the missing part of the data set is fully explored.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it