Guided Data Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we present GDR, a Guided Data Repair framework that incorporates user feedback in the cleaning process to enhance and accelerate existing automatic repair techniques while minimizing user involvement. GDR consults the user on the updates that are most likely to be beneficial in improving data quality. GDR also uses machine learning methods to identify and apply the correct updates directly to the database without the actual involvement of the user on these specific updates. To rank potential updates for consultation by the user, we first group these repairs and quantify the utility of each group using the decision-theory concept of value of information (VOI). We then apply active learning to order updates within a group based on their ability to improve the learned model. User feedback is used to repair the database and to adaptively refine the training set for the model. We empirically evaluate GDR on a real-world dataset and show significant improvement in data quality using our user guided repairing process. We also, assess the trade-off between the user efforts and the resulting data quality.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".