MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035477134 · doi:10.1109/icdew.2014.6818333

Extending contexts with ontologies for multidimensional data quality assessment

2014· article· en· W2035477134 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceDatalogContext (archaeology)Quality (philosophy)Data qualityInformation retrievalQuality assessmentDatabaseData miningData scienceEvaluation methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data quality and data cleaning are context dependent activities. Starting from this observation, in previous work a context model for the assessment of the quality of a database instance was proposed. In that framework, the context takes the form of a possibly virtual database or data integration system into which a database instance under quality assessment is mapped, for additional analysis and processing, enabling quality assessment. In this work we extend contexts with dimensions, and by doing so, we make possible a multidimensional assessment of data quality assessment. Multidimensional contexts are represented as ontologies written in Datalog±. We use this language for representing dimensional constraints, and dimensional rules, and also for doing query answering based on dimensional navigation, which becomes an important auxiliary activity in the assessment of data. We show ideas and mechanisms by means of examples.

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 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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.004
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.568
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.006 · 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

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207