MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Data Analysis and Decision Making: Foundations, Challenges, and Future Directions

2025· article· W7129282235 on OpenAlexaff
J. A. Adlin Layola, S. Anitha Rajathi, P. Ruba Sudha, B. Yamini, R. Premkumar, M Ezhilvendan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataKey (lock)Government (linguistics)TrustworthinessOrder (exchange)ScalabilityDecision support systemData governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The digital age has introduced data analysis and decision making as some of the most important elements of the modern world, which stimulates innovations, efficiency, and competitiveness in industries. The increasing data-driven approach allows organizations to convert the massive amounts of structured and unstructured data into knowledge that can be acted upon in order to make more informed, timely, and effective decisions. This survey lays out the basis of data analysis, its practices, and how it is combined with current advanced technologies like artificial intelligence, machine learning, and big data analytics. It also profiles major uses in areas of business intelligence, healthcare, government policy, manufacturing, education, and how predictive modeling, optimization, and real-time decision support systems can be enabled through analytical insights. Other key issues such as data quality, integration, ethical issues, scalability and human-machine collaboration complexities are also discussed in the paper. Moreover, it looks into the new trends and future research directions including explainable and trustworthy decision-making systems, privacy-preserving analytics, the combination of human expertise and AI, and sustainable data processing. Due to the assessment of opportunities and challenges, this survey emphasizes the power of data analysis to create intelligent systems of decision-making and provides the directions toward the creation of resilient, transparent, and future-ready systems.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.021
Scholarly communication0.0150.028
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0080.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207