MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2484021251 · doi:10.1145/2963143

The Six Pillars for Building Big Data Analytics Ecosystems

2016· review· en· W2484021251 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

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)Queen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalyticsComputer scienceBig dataData scienceProcess (computing)Data analysisEcosystemWeb analyticsWorld Wide WebData miningEcologyThe InternetWeb intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With almost everything now online, organizations look at the Big Data collected to gain insights for improving their services. In the analytics process, derivation of such insights requires experimenting-with and integrating different analytics techniques, while handling the Big Data high arrival velocity and large volumes. Existing solutions cover bits-and-pieces of the analytics process, leaving it to organizations to assemble their own ecosystem or buy an off-the-shelf ecosystem that can have unnecessary components to them. We build on this point by dividing the Big Data Analytics problem into six main pillars. We characterize and show examples of solutions designed for each of these pillars. We then integrate these six pillars into a taxonomy to provide an overview of the possible state-of-the-art analytics ecosystems. In the process, we highlight a number of ecosystems to meet organizations different needs. Finally, we identify possible areas of research for building future Big Data Analytics Ecosystems.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0070.008
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 head0.357
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.033 · 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