MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122852085 · doi:10.1080/17517575.2021.1872107

A review of the state of the art in business intelligence software

2021· review· en· W3122852085 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

VenueEnterprise Information Systems · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBusiness intelligenceScope (computer science)Data scienceSoftware engineeringSoftwareKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTARACTBusiness Intelligence (BI) is known to make smart decisions in various fields. BI proves beneficial for better-visualising of data through reports, charts, ad-hoc queries, dashboards, and benchmarks. Choosing the appropriate BI tools for an organisation may result in higher profit margins. BI tools are usually self-efficient and have a wide scope for data analysis. Furthermore, BI tools can also be used to aid results and monitor business aspects over a long period. This paper reviews fifteen open-source BI tools and analyzes comparisons of these tools based on user reviews while keeping track of the features offered specifically to each BI Tool. The results give an empirical study of BI tools in the hope to better assist users when faced with having to make decisions on which tools are superior as well as giving reasons behind such choices.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.249 · 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