MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100287013 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2012.07.007

A new approach to measure believability dimension of data quality

2012· article· en· W2100287013 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seyed Mohammad Hossein Moossavizadeh, Mehran Mohsenzadeh, Nasrin Arshadi

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Dimension (graph theory)Computer scienceQuality (philosophy)PsychologyStatisticsData miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today's methodologies for data quality assessment and improvement are considerably aimed at reducing costs. Data quality comprises different dimensions, each having certain methods and techniques to assess and improve data quality. One of the most controversial dimensions is data believability in which less attention has been paid by scholars and researchers, because of its ambiguous nature. This is categorized under the "intrinsic data quality" dimensions. The current paper offers a precise and comprehensive definition of such quality dimension, and provides some parameters to understand it. In order to calculate these parameters, furthermore, different methods are discussed.

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 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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.386
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.058 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207