MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138466075 · doi:10.1109/dbkda.2009.30

Visualization and Integration of Databases Using Self-Organizing Map

2009· article· en· W2138466075 on OpenAlexaff
Farid Bourennani, Ken Q. Pu, Ying Zhu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCluster analysisVisualizationData miningRelational databaseInformation retrievalData integrationSemi-structured dataSchema (genetic algorithms)Data visualizationDatabaseArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the growing computer networks, accessible data is becoming increasingly distributed. Understanding and integrating remote and unfamiliar data sources are important data management issues. In this paper, we propose to utilize self-organizing maps (SOM) clustering to aid with the visualization of similar columns, and integration of relational database tables and attributes based on the content. In order to accommodate heterogeneous data types found in relational databases, we extended the TFIDF measure to handle, in addition to text, numerical attribute types for coincident meaning extraction. We present a SOM clustering based visualization algorithm allowing the user to browse the heterogeneously typed database attributes and discover semantically similar clusters. Additionally, we propose a new algorithm Common Item Based Classifier (CIBC) to smoothen the homogeneity of the clusters obtained by SOM. The discovered semantic clusters can significantly aid in manual or automated constructions of data integrity constraints in data cleaning or schema mappings in data integration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207