Ontological Multidimensional Data Models and Contextual Data Quality
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data quality assessment and data cleaning are context-dependent activities. Motivated by this observation, we propose the Ontological Multidimensional Data Model (OMD model), which can be used to model and represent contexts as logic-based ontologies. The data under assessment are mapped into the context for additional analysis, processing, and quality data extraction. The resulting contexts allow for the representation of dimensions , and multidimensional data quality assessment becomes possible. At the core of a multidimensional context, we include a generalized multidimensional data model and a Datalog ± ontology with provably good properties in terms of query answering . These main components are used to represent dimension hierarchies, dimensional constraints, and dimensional rules and define predicates for quality data specification. Query answering relies on and triggers navigation through dimension hierarchies and becomes the basic tool for the extraction of quality data. The OMD model is interesting per se beyond applications to data quality. It allows for a logic-based and computationally tractable representation of multidimensional data, extending previous multidimensional data models with additional expressive power and functionalities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.068 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it