Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Data Mining"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Jones, K.M.L.; Rubel, A.; LeClere, E.: ¬A matter of trust : higher education institutions as information fiduciaries in an age of educational data mining and learning analytics (2020) 0.00
    0.0018909799 = product of:
      0.0037819599 = sum of:
        0.0037819599 = product of:
          0.0075639198 = sum of:
            0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 5968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0075639198 = score(doc=5968,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5968, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5968)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Higher education institutions are mining and analyzing student data to effect educational, political, and managerial outcomes. Done under the banner of "learning analytics," this work can-and often does-surface sensitive data and information about, inter alia, a student's demographics, academic performance, offline and online movements, physical fitness, mental wellbeing, and social network. With these data, institutions and third parties are able to describe student life, predict future behaviors, and intervene to address academic or other barriers to student success (however defined). Learning analytics, consequently, raise serious issues concerning student privacy, autonomy, and the appropriate flow of student data. We argue that issues around privacy lead to valid questions about the degree to which students should trust their institution to use learning analytics data and other artifacts (algorithms, predictive scores) with their interests in mind. We argue that higher education institutions are paradigms of information fiduciaries. As such, colleges and universities have a special responsibility to their students. In this article, we use the information fiduciary concept to analyze cases when learning analytics violate an institution's responsibility to its students.
    Type
    a
  2. Lowe, D.B.; Dollinger, I.; Koster, T.; Herbert, B.E.: Text mining for type of research classification (2021) 0.00
    0.001757696 = product of:
      0.003515392 = sum of:
        0.003515392 = product of:
          0.007030784 = sum of:
            0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007030784 = score(doc=720,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 720, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=720)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This project brought together undergraduate students in Computer Science with librarians to mine abstracts of articles from the Texas A&M University Libraries' institutional repository, OAKTrust, in order to probe the creation of new metadata to improve discovery and use. The mining operation task consisted simply of classifying the articles into two categories of research type: basic research ("for understanding," "curiosity-based," or "knowledge-based") and applied research ("use-based"). These categories are fundamental especially for funders but are also important to researchers. The mining-to-classification steps took several iterations, but ultimately, we achieved good results with the toolkit BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers). The project and its workflows represent a preview of what may lie ahead in the future of crafting metadata using text mining techniques to enhance discoverability.
    Type
    a
  3. Borgman, C.L.; Wofford, M.F.; Golshan, M.S.; Darch, P.T.: Collaborative qualitative research at scale : reflections on 20 years of acquiring global data and making data global (2021) 0.00
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = product of:
          0.006765375 = sum of:
            0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.006765375 = score(doc=239,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 239, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=239)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    A 5-year project to study scientific data uses in geography, starting in 1999, evolved into 20 years of research on data practices in sensor networks, environmental sciences, biology, seismology, undersea science, biomedicine, astronomy, and other fields. By emulating the "team science" approaches of the scientists studied, the UCLA Center for Knowledge Infrastructures accumulated a comprehensive collection of qualitative data about how scientists generate, manage, use, and reuse data across domains. Building upon Paul N. Edwards's model of "making global data"-collecting signals via consistent methods, technologies, and policies-to "make data global"-comparing and integrating those data, the research team has managed and exploited these data as a collaborative resource. This article reflects on the social, technical, organizational, economic, and policy challenges the team has encountered in creating new knowledge from data old and new. We reflect on continuity over generations of students and staff, transitions between grants, transfer of legacy data between software tools, research methods, and the role of professional data managers in the social sciences.
    Type
    a
  4. Goldberg, D.M.; Zaman, N.; Brahma, A.; Aloiso, M.: Are mortgage loan closing delay risks predictable? : A predictive analysis using text mining on discussion threads (2022) 0.00
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = product of:
          0.006765375 = sum of:
            0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.006765375 = score(doc=501,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 501, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=501)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Loan processors and underwriters at mortgage firms seek to gather substantial supporting documentation to properly understand and model loan risks. In doing so, loan originations become prone to closing delays, risking client dissatisfaction and consequent revenue losses. We collaborate with a large national mortgage firm to examine the extent to which these delays are predictable, using internal discussion threads to prioritize interventions for loans most at risk. Substantial work experience is required to predict delays, and we find that even highly trained employees have difficulty predicting delays by reviewing discussion threads. We develop an array of methods to predict loan delays. We apply four modern out-of-the-box sentiment analysis techniques, two dictionary-based and two rule-based, to predict delays. We contrast these approaches with domain-specific approaches, including firm-provided keyword searches and "smoke terms" derived using machine learning. Performance varies widely across sentiment approaches; while some sentiment approaches prioritize the top-ranking records well, performance quickly declines thereafter. The firm-provided keyword searches perform at the rate of random chance. We observe that the domain-specific smoke term approaches consistently outperform other approaches and offer better prediction than loan and borrower characteristics. We conclude that text mining solutions would greatly assist mortgage firms in delay prevention.
    Type
    a
  5. Mandl, T.: Text Mining und Data Mining (2023) 0.00
    0.001674345 = product of:
      0.00334869 = sum of:
        0.00334869 = product of:
          0.00669738 = sum of:
            0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00669738 = score(doc=774,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 774, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=774)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Text und Data Mining sind ein Bündel von Technologien, die eng mit den Themenfeldern Statistik, Maschinelles Lernen und dem Erkennen von Mustern verbunden sind. Die üblichen Definitionen beziehen eine Vielzahl von verschiedenen Verfahren mit ein, ohne eine exakte Grenze zu ziehen. Data Mining bezeichnet die Suche nach Mustern, Regelmäßigkeiten oder Auffälligkeiten in stark strukturierten und vor allem numerischen Daten. "Any algorithm that enumerates patterns from, or fits models to, data is a data mining algorithm." Numerische Daten und Datenbankinhalte werden als strukturierte Daten bezeichnet. Dagegen gelten Textdokumente in natürlicher Sprache als unstrukturierte Daten.
    Type
    a
  6. Organisciak, P.; Schmidt, B.M.; Downie, J.S.: Giving shape to large digital libraries through exploratory data analysis (2022) 0.00
    0.0014351527 = product of:
      0.0028703054 = sum of:
        0.0028703054 = product of:
          0.005740611 = sum of:
            0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.005740611 = score(doc=473,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 473, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=473)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The emergence of large multi-institutional digital libraries has opened the door to aggregate-level examinations of the published word. Such large-scale analysis offers a new way to pursue traditional problems in the humanities and social sciences, using digital methods to ask routine questions of large corpora. However, inquiry into multiple centuries of books is constrained by the burdens of scale, where statistical inference is technically complex and limited by hurdles to access and flexibility. This work examines the role that exploratory data analysis and visualization tools may play in understanding large bibliographic datasets. We present one such tool, HathiTrust+Bookworm, which allows multifaceted exploration of the multimillion work HathiTrust Digital Library, and center it in the broader space of scholarly tools for exploratory data analysis.
    Type
    a
  7. Wiegmann, S.: Hättest du die Titanic überlebt? : Eine kurze Einführung in das Data Mining mit freier Software (2023) 0.00
    0.0011839407 = product of:
      0.0023678814 = sum of:
        0.0023678814 = product of:
          0.0047357627 = sum of:
            0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0047357627 = score(doc=876,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 876, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=876)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a