Ontology-based integration of business intelligence
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
The integration of Business Intelligence (BI) has been taken bybusiness decision-makers as an effective means to enhance enterprise "soft power" and added value in the reconstruction and revolution oftraditional industries. The existing solutions based on structuralintegration are to pack together data warehouse (DW), OLAP, data mining(DM) and reporting systems from different vendors. BI system users arefinally delivered a reporting system in which reports, data models,dimensions and measures are predefined by system designers. As aresult of a survey in the US, 85% of DW projects based on the above solutions failed to meet their intended objectives. In this paper, wesummarize our investigation on the integration of BI on the basis ofsemantic integration and structural interaction. Ontology-basedintegration of BI is discussed for semantic interoperability inintegrating DW, OLAP and DM. A hybrid ontological structure isintroduced which includes conceptual view, analytical view and physicalview. These views are matched with user interfaces, DW and enterpriseinformation systems, respectively. Relevant ontological engineeringtechniques are developed for ontology namespace, semantic relationships,and ontological transformation, mapping and query in this ontologicalspace. The approach is promising for business-oriented, adaptive andautomatic integration of BI in the real world. Operational decisionmaking experiments within a telecom company have demonstrated that a BI system utilizing the proposed approach is more flexible. © 2006 - IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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