MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1576661435

Data quality by design: a goal-oriented approach

2010· dissertation· en· W1576661435 on OpenAlexaff
Lei Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConceptual schemaQuality assuranceSoftware engineeringData qualityData miningDatabaseEngineeringMetric (unit)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A successful information system is the one that meets its design goals. Expressing these goals and subsequently translating them into a working solution is a major challenge for information systems engineering. This thesis adopts the concepts and techniques from goal-oriented (software)
\nrequirements engineering research for conceptual database design, with a focus on data quality issues. Based on a real-world case study, a goal-oriented process is proposed for database requirements analysis and modeling. It spans from analysis of high-level stakeholder goals to detailed design of a conceptual databases schema. This process is then extended specifically for dealing with data quality issues: data of low quality may be detected and corrected by performing various quality assurance activities; to support these activities, the schema needs to be revised by accommodating additional data requirements. The extended process therefore focuses on analyzing and modeling quality assurance data requirements.
\nA quality assurance activity supported by a revised schema may involve manual work,
\nand/or rely on some automatic techniques, which often depend on the specification and enforcement of data quality rules. To address the constraint aspect in conceptual database design, data quality rules are classified according to a number of domain and application independent properties. This classification can be used to guide rule designers and to facilitate building of a
\nrule repository. A quantitative framework is then proposed for measuring and comparing DQ
\nrules according to one of these properties: effectiveness; this framework relies on derivation of formulas that represent the effectiveness of DQ rules under different probabilistic assumptions.
\nA semi-automatic approach is also presented to derive these effectiveness formulas.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207