Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contrast to the Industrial Revolution, the Digital Revolution is happening much more quickly. For example, in 1946, the world’s first programmable computer, the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer (ENIAC), stood 10 feet tall, stretched 150 feet wide, cost millions of dollars, and could execute up to 5,000 operations per second. Twenty- five years later, Intel packed 12 times ENIAC’s processing power into a 12–square-millimeter chip. Today’s personal computers with Pentium processors perform in excess of 400 million instructions per second. Database systems, a subfield of computer science, has also met with notable accelerated advances. A major strength of database systems is their ability to store volumes of complex, hierarchical, heterogeneous, and time-variant data and to provide rapid access to information while correctly capturing and reflecting database updates. Together with the advances in database systems, our relationship with data has evolved from the prerelational and relational period to the data-warehouse period. Today, we are in the knowledge-discovery and data-mining (KDDM) period where the emphasis is not so much on identifying ways to store data or on consolidating and aggregating data to provide a single, unified perspective. Rather, the emphasis of KDDM is on sifting through large volumes of historical data for new and valuable information that will lead to competitive advantage. The evolution to KDDM is natural since our capabilities to produce, collect, and store information have grown exponentially. Debit cards, electronic banking, e-commerce transactions, the widespread introduction of bar codes for commercial products, and advances in both mobile technology and remote sensing data-capture devices have all contributed to the mountains of data stored in business, government, and academic databases. Traditional analytical techniques, especially standard query and reporting and online analytical processing, are ineffective in situations involving large amounts of data and where the exact nature of information one wishes to extract is uncertain. Data mining has thus emerged as a class of analytical techniques that go beyond statistics and that aim at examining large quantities of data; data mining is clearly relevant for the current KDDM period. According to Hirji (2001), data mining is the analysis and nontrivial extraction of data from databases for the purpose of discovering new and valuable information, in the form of patterns and rules, from relationships between data elements. Data mining is receiving widespread attention in the academic and public press literature (Berry & Linoff, 2000; Fayyad, Piatetsky-Shapiro, & Smyth, 1996; Kohavi, Rothleder, & Simoudis, 2002; Newton, Kendziorski, Richmond, & Blattner, 2001; Venter, Adams, & Myers, 2001; Zhang, Wang, Ravindranathan, & Miles, 2002), and case studies and anecdotal evidence to date suggest that organizations are increasingly investigating the potential of data-mining technology to deliver competitive advantage.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
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".