MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220991771 · doi:10.1145/3506712

Machine Learning and Data Cleaning: Which Serves the Other?

2022· article· en· W4220991771 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

VenueJournal of Data and Information Quality · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData qualitySoftware deploymentData scienceData integrationQuality (philosophy)Data miningSoftware engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last few years witnessed significant advances in building automated or semi-automated data quality, data cleaning and data integration systems powered by machine learning (ML). In parallel, large deployment of ML systems in business, science, environment and various other areas started to realize the strong dependency on the quality of the input data to these ML models to get reliable predictions or insights. That dual relationship between ML and data cleaning has been addressed by many recent research works under terms such as “Data cleaning for ML” and “ML for automating data cleaning and data preparation”. In this article, we highlight this symbiotic relationship between ML and data cleaning and discuss few challenges that require collaborative efforts of multiple research communities.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.011
Open science0.0020.005
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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.150 · 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