MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1860275762 · doi:10.1109/nafips.1999.781722

Fuzzy measures for data quality

2003· article· en· W1860275762 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Janta-Polczynski, Eugene Rovenţa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFuzzy logicQuality (philosophy)Data miningRepresentation (politics)Data qualityFuzzy setExternal Data RepresentationInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the paper is twofold: to introduce a clear and coherent framework of data as data elements-the building blocks of information systems; and to discuss dimensions of data quality along three axes: (a) quality of the conceptual view of data; (b) quality of the values to be stored in the database; (c) quality of the representation of data, i.e. their format. For each of these dimensions, the paper discusses the appropriateness of a representation in fuzzy logic.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.018
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 science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.758
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207