MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052799227 · doi:10.1109/3pgcic.2013.68

Principal Component Analysis in Business Intelligence Applications

2013· article· en· W2052799227 on OpenAlexaff
Ana-Maria Sevcenco, Kin Fun Li

Bibliographic record

Venue2013 Eighth International Conference on P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCompetitor analysisBusiness intelligenceContext (archaeology)Identification (biology)Task (project management)Principal component analysisComponent (thermodynamics)Domain (mathematical analysis)Data sciencePrincipal (computer security)Big dataMarket intelligenceBusiness informationChartCompetitive intelligenceInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceData miningKnowledge managementEngineeringMarketingBusinessComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the enormous amount of information available on the web, many innovative applications in the domain of business intelligence have emerged. Information regarding market trends, consumer profile, competitors, etc., enables a firm to chart its direction and formulate strategies. However, in this big data era, getting the right information is not an easy task. In this work, we introduce business intelligence (BI) applications in general, and examine the use of principal component analysis (PCA) in these applications. A study case reveals how PCA can be used for identification of relevant keywords as prominent features, as well as reducing the search space for an individual's specific requests, in the context of a BI recommender.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2013 Eighth International Conference on P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet ComputingSame topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207