MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253082290 · doi:10.1037/e527382013-003

High Quality Analytics with Poor Quality Data

2012· dataset· en· W4253082290 on OpenAlexaff
W. Haque, J. Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenuePsycEXTRA Dataset · 2012
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)AnalyticsData qualityComputer scienceData scienceData analysisData miningBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poor data quality has often been cited as the single most common problem hindering the deployment of Business Intelligence (BI) solutions. This problem is compounded when analytics is performed in non-conventional BI areas such as forestry and silviculture. In this paper, we describe a methodology to perform BI analytics on data that was never collected to be used for this purpose. We show that data of such low and poor quality can be transformed and loaded into the data warehouse which is then used for high quality reporting.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsycEXTRA DatasetSame topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207