Designing Information Product (IP) Maps On the Process of Data Processing and Academic Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".