MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Data Mining with Incomplete Data

2005· book-chapter· en· W4254786677 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

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissing dataAmbiguitySurvey data collectionComputer scienceData miningData setData scienceArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Survey is one of the common data acquisition methods for data mining (Brin, Rastogi & Shim, 2003). In data mining one can rarely find a survey data set that contains complete entries of each observation for all of the variables. Commonly, surveys and questionnaires are often only partially completed by respondents. The possible reasons for incomplete data could be numerous, including negligence, deliberate avoidance for privacy, ambiguity of the survey question, and aversion. The extent of damage of missing data is unknown when it is virtually impossible to return the survey or questionnaires to the data source for completion, but is one of the most important parts of knowledge for data mining to discover. In fact, missing data is an important debatable issue in the knowledge engineering field (Tseng, Wang, & Lee, 2003).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0110.008
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.212 · 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