A glossary for big data in population and public health: discussion and commentary on terminology and research methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The volume and velocity of data are growing rapidly and big data analytics are being applied to these data in many fields. Population and public health researchers may be unfamiliar with the terminology and statistical methods used in big data. This creates a barrier to the application of big data analytics. The purpose of this glossary is to define terms used in big data and big data analytics and to contextualise these terms. We define the five Vs of big data and provide definitions and distinctions for data mining, machine learning and deep learning, among other terms. We provide key distinctions between big data and statistical analysis methods applied to big data. We contextualise the glossary by providing examples where big data analysis methods have been applied to population and public health research problems and provide brief guidance on how to learn big data analysis methods.
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 | 0.102 | 0.250 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.042 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.009 |
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".