Toward Integrating Data Warehousing with Data Mining Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present alternatives for coupling data warehousing and data mining techniques so that they can benefit from each other’s advances for the ultimate objective of efficiently providing a flexible answer to data mining queries addressed either to a bidimensional (relational) or a multidimensional database. In particular, we investigate two techniques: (i) the first one exploits concept lattices for generating frequent closed itemsets, clusters and association rules from multidimensional data, and (ii) the second one defines new operators similar in spirit to online analytical processing (OLAP) techniques to allow “data mining on demand” (i.e., data mining according to user’s needs and perspectives). The implementation of OLAP-like techniques relies on three operations on lattices, namely selection, projection and assembly. A detailed running example serves to illustrate the scope and benefits of the proposed techniques.
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 | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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".