MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016677020 · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2988120

Sampling for Big Data Profiling: A Survey

2020· article· en· W3016677020 on OpenAlexaff
Zhicheng Liu, Aoqian Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBig dataProfiling (computer programming)Computer scienceData miningMetadataData scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the development of internet technology and computer science, data is exploding at an exponential rate. Big data brings us new opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, we can analyze and mine big data to discover hidden information and get more potential value. On the other hand, the 5V characteristic of big data, especially Volume which means large amount of data, brings challenges to storage and processing. For some traditional data mining algorithms, machine learning algorithms and data profiling tasks, it is very difficult to handle such a large amount of data. The large amount of data is highly demanding hardware resources and time consuming. Sampling methods can effectively reduce the amount of data and help speed up data processing. Sampling technology has been widely used in big data context. Data profiling is the activity that finds metadata of data set and has many use cases, e.g., performing data profiling tasks on relational data, graph data, and time series data for anomaly detection and data repair. However, data profiling is computationally expensive, especially for large data sets. Hence this article focuses on researching sampling for data profiling tasks in big data context and investigates the application of sampling in different categories of data profiling. From the experimental results of these studies, the results got from the sampled data are close to or even exceed the results of the full amount of data. Therefore, sampling technology plays an important role in the era of big data, and we also have reason to believe that sampling technology will become an indispensable step in big data processing in the future.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.919
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207