MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223943788 · doi:10.3390/bdcc6020042

An Emergency Event Detection Ensemble Model Based on Big Data

2022· article· en· W4223943788 on OpenAlexaff
Khalid Alfalqi, Martine Bellaïche

Bibliographic record

VenueBig Data and Cognitive Computing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataEvent (particle physics)Computer scienceSocial mediaData scienceData miningWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emergency events arise when a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous threat affects normal life. Hence, knowing what is occurring during and after emergency events is critical to mitigate the effect of the incident on humans’ life, on the environment and our infrastructures, as well as the inherent financial consequences. Social network utilization in emergency event detection models can play an important role as information is shared and users’ status is updated once an emergency event occurs. Besides, big data proved its significance as a tool to assist and alleviate emergency events by processing an enormous amount of data over a short time interval. This paper shows that it is necessary to have an appropriate emergency event detection ensemble model (EEDEM) to respond quickly once such unfortunate events occur. Furthermore, it integrates Snapchat maps to propose a novel method to pinpoint the exact location of an emergency event. Moreover, merging social networks and big data can accelerate the emergency event detection system: social network data, such as those from Twitter and Snapchat, allow us to manage, monitor, analyze and detect emergency events. The main objective of this paper is to propose a novel and efficient big data-based EEDEM to pinpoint the exact location of emergency events by employing the collected data from social networks, such as “Twitter” and “Snapchat”, while integrating big data (BD) and machine learning (ML). Furthermore, this paper evaluates the performance of five ML base models and the proposed ensemble approach to detect emergency events. Results show that the proposed ensemble approach achieved a very high accuracy of 99.87% which outperform the other base models. Moreover, the proposed base models yields a high level of accuracy: 99.72%, 99.70% for LSTM and decision tree, respectively, with an acceptable training time.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designSimulation or modeling · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Methods

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBig Data and Cognitive ComputingSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207