GPT in Data Science: A Practical Exploration of Model Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an increasing interest in leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) for managing structured data and enhancing data science processes. Despite the potential benefits, this integration poses significant questions regarding their reliability and decision-making methodologies. Our objective is to elucidate and express the factors and assumptions guiding GPT-4’s model selection recommendations. It highlights the importance of various factors in the model selection process, including the nature of the data, problem type, performance metrics, computational resources, interpretability vs accuracy, assumptions about data, and ethical considerations. We employ a variability model to depict these factors and use toy datasets to evaluate both the model and the implementation of the identified heuristics. By contrasting these outcomes with heuristics from other platforms, our aim is to determine the effectiveness and distinctiveness of GPT-4’s methodology. This research is committed to advancing our comprehension of AI decision-making processes, especially in the realm of model selection within data science. Our efforts are directed towards creating AI systems that are more transparent and comprehensible, contributing to a more responsible and efficient practice in data science.
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 | 0.040 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".