Stacked Neural Computing Model - Based Data Quality Analysis and Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For precise analysis, trustworthy decision-making, and successful applications based on machine learning, quality of data must be ensured. A layered neural network computation system for thorough data integrity evaluation and sorting is proposed in this research. The model assesses data quality in conjunction with several important characteristics, including reliability, correctness, entirety, and regularity, by utilizing the complexity and versatility of deep learning. The proposed system focuses on developing a robust approach to data quality analysis using the Stacked Neural Computing Model (SNCM). The analysis is conducted on the CIC (Canadian Institute of Cybersecurity) dataset, which is collected from a real-time smart communication environment. The raw input data undergoes preprocessing and feature extraction through data quality check frameworks, which include imputation, outlier detection, missing value replacement, and unique feature point extraction. A hybrid feature extraction technique, incorporating Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Independent Component Analysis (ICA), and Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), is employed to refine the data. Once the features are processed, the dataset is divided into training and testing sets. The data quality is then evaluated by performing a correlation score analysis using the Stacked Neural Computing Model (SNCM).
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".