MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414240954 · doi:10.3390/make7030101

CRISP-NET: Integration of the CRISP-DM Model with Network Analysis

2025· article· en· W4414240954 on OpenAlexafffund
Héctor Alejandro Acuña-Cid, Eduardo Ahumada‐Tello, Óscar Omar Ovalle Osuna, Richard Evans, Julia Elena Hernández-Ríos, Miriam Alondra Zambrano-Soto

Bibliographic record

VenueMachine Learning and Knowledge Extraction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Process (computing)Field (mathematics)Adaptation (eye)PersonalizationData integrationSoftwareSoftware developmentSoftware development process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To carry out data analysis, it is necessary to implement a model that guides the process in an orderly and sequential manner, with the aim of maintaining control over software development and its documentation. One of the most widely used tools in the field of data analysis is the Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining (CRISP-DM), which serves as a reference framework for data mining, allowing the identification of patterns and, based on them, supporting informed decision-making. Another tool used for pattern identification and the study of relationships within systems is network analysis (NA), which makes it possible to explore how different components are interconnected. The integration of these tools can be justified and developed under the principles of Situational Method Engineering (SME), which allows for the adaptation and customization of existing methods according to the specific needs of a problem or context. Through SME, it is possible to determine which components of CRISP-DM need to be adjusted to efficiently incorporate NA, ensuring that this integration aligns with the project’s objectives in a structured and effective manner. The proposed methodological process was applied in a real working group, which allowed its functionality to be validated, each phase to be documented, and concrete outputs to be generated, demonstrating its usefulness for the development of analytical projects.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMachine Learning and Knowledge ExtractionSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207