MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048052888 · doi:10.1109/trustcom.2014.81

Big Data Analyses for Collective Opinion Elicitation in Social Networks

2014· article· en· W2048052888 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
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Computing and Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBig dataComputer scienceVotingData scienceCollective intelligenceSentiment analysisComputational intelligenceFuzzy logicData miningArtificial intelligencePolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Big data are extremely large-scaled data in terms of quantity, complexity, semantics, distribution, and processing costs in computer science, cognitive informatics, web-based computing, cloud computing, and computational intelligence. Censuses and elections are a typical paradigm of big data engineering in modern digital democracy and social networks. This paper analyzes the mechanisms of voting systems and collective opinions using big data analysis technologies. A set of numerical and fuzzy models for collective opinion analyses is presented for applications in social networks, online voting, and general elections. A fundamental insight on the collective opinion equilibrium is revealed among electoral distributions and in voting systems. Fuzzy analysis methods for collective opinions are rigorously developed and applied in poll data mining, collective opinion determination, and quantitative electoral data processing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Computing and NetworksFrench-language works237,207