Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the size of data warehouses increase to several hundreds of gigabytes or terabytes, the need for methods and tools that will automate the process of knowledge extraction, or guide the user to subsets of the dataset that are of particular interest, is becoming prominent. In this survey paper we explore the problem of identifying and extracting interesting knowledge from large collections of data residing in data warehouses, by using data mining techniques. Such techniques have the ability to identify patterns and build succinct models to describe the data. These models can also be used to achieve summarization and approximation. We review the associated work in the OLAP, data mining, and approximate query answering literature. We discuss the need for the traditional data mining techniques to adapt, and accommodate the specific characteristics of OLAP systems. We also examine the notion of interestingness of data, as a tool to guide the analysis process. We describe methods that have been proposed in the literature for determining what is interesting to the user and what is not, and how these approaches can be incorporated in the data mining algorithms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".