Terms Mining in Document-Based NoSQL: Response to Unstructured Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unstructured data mining has become topical recently due to the availability of high-dimensional and voluminous digital content (known as "Big Data") across the enterprise spectrum. The Relational Database Management Systems (RDBMS) have been employed over the past decades for content storage and management, but, the ever-growing heterogeneity in today's data calls for a new storage approach. Thus, the NoSQL database has emerged as the preferred storage facility nowadays since the facility supports unstructured data storage. This creates the need to explore efficient data mining techniques from such NoSQL systems since the available tools and frameworks which are designed for RDBMS are often not directly applicable. In this paper, we focused on topics and terms mining, based on clustering, in document-based NoSQL. This is achieved by adapting the architectural design of an analytics-as-a-service framework and the proposal of the Viterbi algorithm to enhance the accuracy of the terms classification in the system. The results from the pilot testing of our work show higher accuracy in comparison to some previously proposed techniques such as the parallel search.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".