MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090295042 · doi:10.1145/3408314

Big Data Systems

2020· review· en· W3090295042 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

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceBig dataScalabilitySoftware engineeringContext (archaeology)Data scienceSoftwareSoftware developmentDatabaseData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Big Data Systems (BDSs) are an emerging class of scalable software technologies whereby massive amounts of heterogeneous data are gathered from multiple sources, managed, analyzed (in batch, stream or hybrid fashion), and served to end-users and external applications. Such systems pose specific challenges in all phases of software development lifecycle and might become very complex by evolving data, technologies, and target value over time. Consequently, many organizations and enterprises have found it difficult to adopt BDSs. In this article, we provide insight into three major activities of software engineering in the context of BDSs as well as the choices made to tackle them regarding state-of-the-art research and industry efforts. These activities include the engineering of requirements, designing and constructing software to meet the specified requirements, and software/data quality assurance. We also disclose some open challenges of developing effective BDSs, which need attention from both researchers and practitioners.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.000
Open science0.0270.030
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.007

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 head0.728
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.227 · 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