MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W107444495

Looking Backward, Forward, and All Around: Temporal, Spatial, and Spatio-Temporal Data Mining

2002· article· en· W107444495 on OpenAlexaffabout
Howard J. Hamilton, Leah Findlater

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizationComputer scienceData miningTemporal databaseProcess (computing)Data modelingSet (abstract data type)Domain (mathematical analysis)Data setSoftwareSpatial analysisCurrent (fluid)Artificial intelligenceGeographyRemote sensingMathematicsGeologyDatabase
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe current research in temporal, spatial, and spatio-temporal data mining. In these types of data mining, a model of time, space, or space-time plays a nontrivial role. As an example of current research, we describe our MegaMiner prototype software. The DGG-Discover 5.2 module of MegaMiner is based on expected distribution domain generalization graphs (EDDGGs), which allow detailed domain knowledge about temporal and spatial generalization relationships to be specified, and then applied during the data mining process. As well, user expectations about the data can be specified and updated during the mining process. We illustrate the current state of the MegaMiner software by applying it to a previously unseen data set, describing the weather of the province of Saskatchewan for the period 1900 to 1949. We were able to find temporal and spatial relationships, but not spatio-temporal ones.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207