MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097807244 · doi:10.1142/s021962201240007x

TOP-10 DATA MINING CASE STUDIES

2012· article· en· W2097807244 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSnapshot (computer storage)Computer scienceKnowledge extractionData scienceUnstructured dataData miningDomain knowledgeInformation extractionBig dataKnowledge managementArtificial intelligenceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on the panel discussion held at the ICDM'10 conference on the top 10 data mining case studies in order to provide a snapshot of where and how data mining techniques have made significant real-world impact. The tasks covered by 10 case studies range from the detection of anomalies such as cancer, fraud, and system failures to the optimization of organizational operations, and include the automated extraction of information from unstructured sources. From the 10 cases we find that supervised methods prevail while unsupervised techniques play a supporting role. Further, significant domain knowledge is generally required to achieve a completed solution. Finally, we find that successful applications are more commonly associated with continual improvement rather than by single "aha moments" of knowledge ("nugget") discovery.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.007
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.338 · 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