MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Toward Integrating Data Warehousing with Data Mining Techniques

2008· book-chapter· en· W2504862211 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

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOnline analytical processingData warehouseComputer scienceData miningScope (computer science)Data cubeMultidimensional dataAssociation rule learningExploitProjection (relational algebra)Relational databaseDatabaseData scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present alternatives for coupling data warehousing and data mining techniques so that they can benefit from each other’s advances for the ultimate objective of efficiently providing a flexible answer to data mining queries addressed either to a bidimensional (relational) or a multidimensional database. In particular, we investigate two techniques: (i) the first one exploits concept lattices for generating frequent closed itemsets, clusters and association rules from multidimensional data, and (ii) the second one defines new operators similar in spirit to online analytical processing (OLAP) techniques to allow “data mining on demand” (i.e., data mining according to user’s needs and perspectives). The implementation of OLAP-like techniques relies on three operations on lattices, namely selection, projection and assembly. A detailed running example serves to illustrate the scope and benefits of the proposed techniques.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), 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 score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0080.007
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.203 · 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