MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214857728 · doi:10.1109/swc50871.2021.00041

Scalable Mining of Big Data

2021· article· en· W3214857728 on OpenAlexaff
Carson K. Leung, Adam G.M. Pazdor, Hao Zheng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataComputer scienceScalabilityData scienceKnowledge extractionGranularityData miningData stream miningCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DatabaseDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technological advancements have led to easy and rapid generation and collection of huge volumes of varieties of data from of wide ranges of rich data sources. These big data may be of different levels of veracity, including precise data and imprecise or uncertain data. Embedded in the data are valuable information and useful knowledge that can be discovered by data mining. Discovered information and knowledge may help to build a smart world. In this paper, we present a solution for scalable mining of big data. In particular, we focus on scalable mining of huge volumes of temporal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) data at different granularity levels. Since its outbreak, there have been millions of COVID-19 cases worldwide. These are huge volumes of data, and new cases have been reported every day. Embedded in these COVID-19 data is implicit, previously unknown and potentially useful information and knowledge, which can be discovered by data mining for social good. Analyzing and mining these data helps users (e.g., researchers, civilian) to get better understanding of the disease, and thus take an active role in fighting, controlling, and/or combating the disease. Evaluation results on real-life COVID-19 data show the benefits of our solution in scalable mining of big data.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AIFrench-language works237,207