MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750213807 · doi:10.31937/ijnmt.v4i1.534

Designing Information Product (IP) Maps On the Process of Data Processing and Academic Information

2017· article· en· W2750213807 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Diana Effendi

Bibliographic record

VenueIJNMT (International Journal of New Media Technology) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRyerson University
KeywordsComputer scienceData managementQuality (philosophy)Information managementInformation systemData qualityProduct (mathematics)Process (computing)Data scienceKnowledge managementDatabaseEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information Product Approach (IP Approach) is an information management approach. It can be used to manage product information and data quality analysis. IP-Map can be used by organizations to facilitate the management of knowledge in collecting, storing, maintaining, and using the data in an organized. The process of data management of academic activities in X University has not yet used the IP approach. X University has not given attention to the management of information quality of its. During this time X University just concern to system applications used to support the automation of data management in the process of academic activities. IP-Map that made in this paper can be used as a basis for analyzing the quality of data and information. By the IP-MAP, X University is expected to know which parts of the process that need improvement in the quality of data and information management. Index term: IP Approach, IP-Map, information quality, data quality. REFERENCES[1] H. Zhu, S. Madnick, Y. Lee, and R. Wang, "Data and Information Quality Research: Its Evolution and Future,” Working Paper, MIT, USA, 2012.[2] Lee, Yang W; at al, Journey To Data Quality, MIT Press: Cambridge, 2006.[3] L. Al-Hakim, Information Quality Management: Theory and Applications. Idea Group Inc (IGI), 2007.[4] "Access : A semiotic information quality framework: development and comparative analysis : Journal ofInformation Technology.” [Online]. Available: http://www.palgravejournals.com/jit/journal/v20/n2/full/2000038a.html. [Accessed: 18-Sep-2015].[5] Effendi, Diana, Pengukuran Dan Perbaikan Kualitas Data Dan Informasi Di Perguruan Tinggi MenggunakanCALDEA Dan EVAMECAL (Studi Kasus X University), Proceeding Seminar Nasional RESASTEK, 2012, pp.TIG.1-TI-G.6.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.024
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIJNMT (International Journal of New Media Technology)Same topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207