Data Harmonization for Heterogeneous Datasets: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As data size increases drastically, its variety also increases. Investigating such heterogeneous data is one of the most challenging tasks in information management and data analytics. The heterogeneity and decentralization of data sources affect data visualization and prediction, thereby influencing analytical results accordingly. Data harmonization (DH) corresponds to a field that unifies the representation of such a disparate nature of data. Over the years, multiple solutions have been developed to minimize the heterogeneity aspects and disparity in formats of big-data types. In this study, a systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the state-of-the-art DH techniques. This study aimed to understand the issues faced due to heterogeneity, the need for DH and the techniques that deal with substantial heterogeneous textual datasets. The process produced 1355 articles, but among them, only 70 articles were found to be relevant through inclusion and exclusion criteria methods. The result shows that the heterogeneity of structured, semi-structured, and unstructured (SSU) data can be managed by using DH and its core techniques, such as text preprocessing, Natural Language Preprocessing (NLP), machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL). These techniques are applied to many real-world applications centered on the information-retrieval domain. Several assessment criteria were implemented to measure the efficiency of these techniques, such as precision, recall, F-1, accuracy, and time. A detailed explanation of each research question, common techniques, and performance measures is also discussed. Lastly, we present readers with a detailed discussion of the existing work, contributions, and managerial and academic implications, along with the conclusion, limitations, and future research directions.
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 | 0.028 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".