MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530293644 · doi:10.2196/publichealth.5810

IBM Watson Analytics: Automating Visualization, Descriptive, and Predictive Statistics

2016· article· en· W2530293644 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert Hoyt, Dallas Snider, Carla J. Thompson, S. Mantravadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalyticsIBMData scienceComputer sciencePredictive analyticsWatsonVisual analyticsSoftware analyticsData visualizationDescriptive statisticsBusiness analyticsExploratory data analysisVisualizationSoftwareData miningStatisticsSoftware developmentArtificial intelligenceSoftware development process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We live in an era of explosive data generation that will continue to grow and involve all industries. One of the results of this explosion is the need for newer and more efficient data analytics procedures. Traditionally, data analytics required a substantial background in statistics and computer science. In 2015, International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) released the IBM Watson Analytics (IBMWA) software that delivered advanced statistical procedures based on the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The latest entry of Watson Analytics into the field of analytical software products provides users with enhanced functions that are not available in many existing programs. For example, Watson Analytics automatically analyzes datasets, examines data quality, and determines the optimal statistical approach. Users can request exploratory, predictive, and visual analytics. Using natural language processing (NLP), users are able to submit additional questions for analyses in a quick response format. This analytical package is available free to academic institutions (faculty and students) that plan to use the tools for noncommercial purposes. OBJECTIVE: To report the features of IBMWA and discuss how this software subjectively and objectively compares to other data mining programs. METHODS: The salient features of the IBMWA program were examined and compared with other common analytical platforms, using validated health datasets. RESULTS: Using a validated dataset, IBMWA delivered similar predictions compared with several commercial and open source data mining software applications. The visual analytics generated by IBMWA were similar to results from programs such as Microsoft Excel and Tableau Software. In addition, assistance with data preprocessing and data exploration was an inherent component of the IBMWA application. Sensitivity and specificity were not included in the IBMWA predictive analytics results, nor were odds ratios, confidence intervals, or a confusion matrix. CONCLUSIONS: IBMWA is a new alternative for data analytics software that automates descriptive, predictive, and visual analytics. This program is very user-friendly but requires data preprocessing, statistical conceptual understanding, and domain expertise.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.023

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations70
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207