MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7143599063 · doi:10.71465/ajdsa869

Artificial Intelligence in Data Science: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Application

2020· article· W7143599063 on OpenAlexaff
Emma Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Data Science and Analysis · 2020
Typearticle
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)CornerstoneApplications of artificial intelligenceBig dataGroup method of data handling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a cornerstone of data science, driving innovations in machine learning, deep learning, and predictive analytics. By bridging the gap between theoretical models and practical applications, AI is revolutionizing industries such as healthcare, finance, marketing, and more. This article explores the impact of AI on data science, the latest advancements in AI algorithms, and the challenges and opportunities in applying AI to real-world data problems.

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 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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.022
Science and technology studies0.0030.016
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0080.005
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.299
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.213 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Data Science and AnalysisSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207