MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2725218421 · doi:10.1142/s1793005717400026

On the Cognitive and Theoretical Foundations of Big Data Science and Engineering

2017· article· en· W2725218421 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

VenueNew Mathematics and Natural Computation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Computing and Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataComputer scienceData scienceSet (abstract data type)Property (philosophy)Science and engineeringCognitive scienceCognitionTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceEpistemologyData miningEngineering ethicsPsychologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Big data play an indispensable role not only in the cognitive mechanisms of human sensation, quantification, qualification, estimation, memory, and reasoning, but also in a wide range of engineering applications. A basic study on the theoretical foundations of big data science is presented with a coherent set of general principles and analytic methodologies for big data systems. Cognitive foundations of big data are explored in order to formally explain the origination and nature of big data. A set of mathematical models of big data are created that rigorously elicit the general essences and patterns of big data across pervasive domains in sciences, engineering, and societies. A significant finding towards big data science is that big data systems in nature are a recursive [Formula: see text]-dimensional-typed hyperstructure (RNTHS) rather than pure numbers. The fundamental topological property of big data reveals a set of denotational mathematical solutions for dealing with inherited complexities and unprecedented challenges in big data engineering.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.253 · 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