MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581315808 · doi:10.5539/mas.v11n4p1

The Study of Semantic Analysis on Intelligence Research under the Environment of Big Data

2017· article· en· W2581315808 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicBig Data Technologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData scienceSemantic technologyIntelligence analysisSemantic analysis (machine learning)Semantic computingVisualizationMeaning (existential)Business intelligenceBig dataInformation retrievalStrengths and weaknessesSemantic WebKnowledge managementArtificial intelligenceData miningPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faced with complex, large mass of data, how to find the information we need from these data, then to do intelligence research, it is an issue of concern in the intelligence community. This paper analyzes the significance of research and three technologies to ensure the rigor of intelligence research: visualization, data mining and semantic analysis technology, focuses on the semantic analysis technology in the application of intelligence research, exemplified by the semantic role annotation and semantic-based text orientation analysis of two methods, described the meaning of these two methods, the semantic database, the basic flow of information, their strengths and weaknesses, as well asdevelopment and raised its outlook in information research.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Open science
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0200.006
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 head0.698
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.199 · 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