MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754051415 · doi:10.1136/jech-2017-209608

A glossary for big data in population and public health: discussion and commentary on terminology and research methods

2017· article· en· W2754051415 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

VenueJournal of Epidemiology & Community Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataGlossaryTerminologyData scienceAnalyticsPopulationPopulation healthPublic healthData analysisComputer scienceMedicineData miningEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.005
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 head0.898
GPT teacher head0.729
Teacher spread0.169 · 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