MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965831557 · doi:10.4018/ijamc.2019100102

Solving Heterogeneous Big Data Mining Problems Using Multi-Objective Optimization

2019· article· en· W2965831557 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

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Metaheuristic Computing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBig dataData processingData miningArtificial intelligenceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, we have access to unprecedented quantities of data composed of heterogeneous data types (HDT). Heterogeneous data mining (HDM) is a new research area that focuses on the processing of HDT. Usually, input data is transformed into an algebraic model before data processing. However, how to combine the representations of HDT into a single model for a unified processing of big data is an open question. In this article, the authors attempt to find answers to this question by solving a data integration (DI) problem which involves the processing of seven HDT. They propose to solve the DI problem by combining multi-objective optimization and self-organizing maps to find optimal parameters settings for most accurate HDM results. The preliminary results are promising, and a post processing algorithm is proposed which makes the DI operations much simpler and more accurate.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.240 · 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