The Six Pillars for Building Big Data Analytics Ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".