MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998594312 · doi:10.1109/edoc.2019.00029

Predictive Analytics for Event Stream Processing

2019· article· en· W2998594312 on OpenAlexaff
Massiva Roudjane, Djamal Rebaïne, Raphaël Khoury, Sylvain Hallé

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplex event processingComputer scienceStream processingEvent (particle physics)WorkflowProcess miningProcess (computing)Business processAnalyticsBusiness process discoveryBusiness process managementData miningComputationBusiness process modelingWork in processDistributed computingDatabaseProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historical data contained in event logs can reveal important insights about the execution of a business process. In particular, the trends computed by processing and analyzing the sequence of events generated by multiple instances of the same process serve as the basis to produce forecasts about current executions of the process. In this paper, we join the concepts of event stream processing and machine learning to create a framework that allows the computation of various kinds of predictions on event logs. The proposed framework is generic: by providing different definitions to a handful of event functions, multiple different types of predictions can be computed using the same basic workflow. The approach has been implemented and experimentally evaluated by extending an existing event stream processing engine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207