MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565866388 · doi:10.1109/dsaa.2016.91

Meeting Health Care Research Needs in a Kimball Integrated Data Warehouse

2016· article· en· W2565866388 on OpenAlexaff
Robert D. Hart, Alex Kuo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData warehouseBusiness intelligenceStrengths and weaknessesData scienceComputer scienceHealth careKnowledge managementProcess managementBusinessData miningPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Business Intelligence and the Kimball methodology, often referred to as dimensional modelling, are well established in data warehousing as a successful means of turning data into information. These techniques have been utilized in multiple business areas such as banking, manufacturing, marketing, sales, healthcare and more. Several articles have also shown how the Kimball approach can and has been used in the development of clinical research databases. However, these articles have also shown that there are weaknesses to the Kimball methodology when applied to complex areas such as clinical research. This paper describes our approach to address these weaknesses and meet the more sophisticated needs of health researchers by leveraging relationships within the underlying data and advanced techniques in the Kimball methodology.

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 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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.712
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.119 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207