MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067186171 · doi:10.1145/2656346.2656358

Big data architecture evolution

2014· article· en· W2067186171 on OpenAlexaff
Atif Farid Mohammad, Hamid Mcheick, Emanuel S. Grant

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataData architectureComputer scienceArchitectureData scienceRelation (database)Reference architectureCloud computingEnterprise architectureSoftware architectureDatabaseData miningSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims at developing the Big Data Architecture, and its relation with Analytics, Cloud Services as well as Business Intelligence. The chief aim from all mentioned is to enable the Enterprise Architecture and the Vision of an Organizational target to utilize all the data they are ingesting and regressing data for their short-term or long-terms analytical needs, while making sure that they are addressing during the design phase of such data architecture for both directly and indirectly related stakeholder. Since all stakeholders have their relative interests to utilize the transformed data-sets. This paper also identifies most of the Big Data Architecture, threat analysis within a Big Data System and Big Data Analytic Roadmaps, in terms of smaller components by conducting a gap-analysis that has significant importance as Baseline Big Data Architecture, targeting the end resultant Architectures, once the distillation process of main Big Data Architecture is completed by the Data Architects.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207