INDEPENDENT DE-DUPLICATION IN DATA CLEANING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many organizations collect large amounts of data to support their business anddecision-making processes. The data originate from a variety of sources that may haveinherent data-quality problems. These problems become more pronounced whenheterogeneous data sources are integrated (for example, in data warehouses). A majorproblem that arises from integrating different databases is the existence of duplicates. Thechallenge of de-duplication is identifying “equivalent” records within the database. Mostpublished research in de-duplication propose techniques that rely heavily on domainknowledge. A few others propose solutions that are partially domain-independent. Thispaper identifies two levels of domain-independence in de-duplication namely: domainindependenceat the attribute level, and domain-independence at the record level. Thepaper then proposes a positional algorithm that achieves domain-independent deduplicationat the attribute level, and a technique for field weighting by data profiling,which, when used with the positional algorithm, achieves domain-independence at therecord level. Experiments show that the proposed techniques achieve more accurate deduplicationthan the existing algorithms.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".