On the Cognitive and Theoretical Foundations of Big Data Science and Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".