A Data Science Solution for Mining Interesting Patterns from Uncertain Big Data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, high volumes of valuable uncertain data can be easily collected or generated at high velocity in many real-life applications. Mining these uncertain Big data is computationally intensive due to the presence of existential probability values associated with items in every transaction in the uncertain data. Each existential probability value expresses the likelihood of that item to be present in a particular transaction in the Big data. In some situations, users may be interested in mining all frequent patterns from these uncertain Big data, in other situations, users may be interested in only a tiny portion of these mined patterns. To reduce the computation and to focus the mining for the latter situations, we propose a tree-based algorithm that (i) allows users to express the patterns to be mined according to their intention via the use of constraints and (ii) uses MapReduce to mine uncertain Big data for only those frequent patterns that satisfy user-specified constraints. Experimental results show the effectiveness of our algorithm in mining interesting patterns from uncertain Big data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it