Due to increasing use of technology-enhanced educational assessment, data mining methods have been explored to analyse process data in log files from such assessment. However, most studies were limited to one data mining technique under one specific scenario. The current study demonstrates the usage of four frequently used supervised techniques, including Classification and Regression Trees (CART), gradient boosting, random forest, support vector machine (SVM), and two unsupervised methods, Self-organizing Map (SOM) and k-means, fitted to one assessment data. The USA sample (N = 426) from the 2012 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) responding to problem-solving items is extracted to demonstrate the methods. After concrete feature generation and feature selection, classifier development procedures are implemented using the illustrated techniques. Results show satisfactory classification accuracy for all the techniques. Suggestions for the selection of classifiers are presented based on the research questions, the interpretability and the simplicity of the classifiers. Interpretations for the results from both supervised and unsupervised learning methods are provided.

LScDC Word-Category RIG MatrixApril 2020 by Neslihan Suzen, PhD student at the University of Leicester (ns433@leicester.ac.uk / suzenneslihan@hotmail.com)Supervised by Prof Alexander Gorban and Dr Evgeny MirkesGetting StartedThis file describes the Word-Category RIG Matrix for theLeicester Scientific Corpus (LSC) [1], the procedure to build the matrix and introduces the Leicester Scientific Thesaurus (LScT) with the construction process. The Word-Category RIG Matrix is a 103,998 by 252 matrix, where rows correspond to words of Leicester Scientific Dictionary-Core (LScDC) [2] and columns correspond to 252 Web of Science (WoS) categories [3, 4, 5]. Each entry in the matrix corresponds to a pair (category,word). Its value for the pair shows the Relative Information Gain (RIG) on the belonging of a text from the LSC to the category from observing the word in this text. The CSV file of Word-Category RIG Matrix in the published archive is presented with two additional columns of the sum of RIGs in categories and the maximum of RIGs over categories (last two columns of the matrix). So, the file ‘Word-Category RIG Matrix.csv’ contains a total of 254 columns.This matrix is created to be used in future research on quantifying of meaning in scientific texts under the assumption that words have scientifically specific meanings in subject categories and the meaning can be estimated by information gains from word to categories. LScT (Leicester Scientific Thesaurus) is a scientific thesaurus of English. The thesaurus includes a list of 5,000 words from the LScDC. We consider ordering the words of LScDC by the sum of their RIGs in categories. That is, words are arranged in their informativeness in the scientific corpus LSC. Therefore, meaningfulness of words evaluated by words’ average informativeness in the categories. We have decided to include the most informative 5,000 words in the scientific thesaurus. Words as a Vector of Frequencies in WoS CategoriesEach word of the LScDC is represented as a vector of frequencies in WoS categories. Given the collection of the LSC texts, each entry of the vector consists of the number of texts containing the word in the corresponding category.It is noteworthy that texts in a corpus do not necessarily belong to a single category, as they are likely to correspond to multidisciplinary studies, specifically in a corpus of scientific texts. In other words, categories may not be exclusive. There are 252 WoS categories and a text can be assigned to at least 1 and at most 6 categories in the LSC. Using the binary calculation of frequencies, we introduce the presence of a word in a category. We create a vector of frequencies for each word, where dimensions are categories in the corpus.The collection of vectors, with all words and categories in the entire corpus, can be shown in a table, where each entry corresponds to a pair (word,category). This table is build for the LScDC with 252 WoS categories and presented in published archive with this file. The value of each entry in the table shows how many times a word of LScDC appears in a WoS category. The occurrence of a word in a category is determined by counting the number of the LSC texts containing the word in a category. Words as a Vector of Relative Information Gains Extracted for CategoriesIn this section, we introduce our approach to representation of a word as a vector of relative information gains for categories under the assumption that meaning of a word can be quantified by their information gained for categories.For each category, a function is defined on texts that takes the value 1, if the text belongs to the category, and 0 otherwise. For each word, a function is defined on texts that takes the value 1 if the word belongs to the text, and 0 otherwise. Consider LSC as a probabilistic sample space (the space of equally probable elementary outcomes). For the Boolean random variables, the joint probability distribution, the entropy and information gains are defined.The information gain about the category from the word is the amount of information on the belonging of a text from the LSC to the category from observing the word in the text [6]. We used the Relative Information Gain (RIG) providing a normalised measure of the Information Gain. This provides the ability of comparing information gains for different categories. The calculations of entropy, Information Gains and Relative Information Gains can be found in the README file in the archive published. Given a word, we created a vector where each component of the vector corresponds to a category. Therefore, each word is represented as a vector of relative information gains. It is obvious that the dimension of vector for each word is the number of categories. The set of vectors is used to form the Word-Category RIG Matrix, in which each column corresponds to a category, each row corresponds to a word and each component is the relative information gain from the word to the category. In Word-Category RIG Matrix, a row vector represents the corresponding word as a vector of RIGs in categories. We note that in the matrix, a column vector represents RIGs of all words in an individual category. If we choose an arbitrary category, words can be ordered by their RIGs from the most informative to the least informative for the category. As well as ordering words in each category, words can be ordered by two criteria: sum and maximum of RIGs in categories. The top n words in this list can be considered as the most informative words in the scientific texts. For a given word, the sum and maximum of RIGs are calculated from the Word-Category RIG Matrix.RIGs for each word of LScDC in 252 categories are calculated and vectors of words are formed. We then form the Word-Category RIG Matrix for the LSC. For each word, the sum (S) and maximum (M) of RIGs in categories are calculated and added at the end of the matrix (last two columns of the matrix). The Word-Category RIG Matrix for the LScDC with 252 categories, the sum of RIGs in categories and the maximum of RIGs over categories can be found in the database.Leicester Scientific Thesaurus (LScT)Leicester Scientific Thesaurus (LScT) is a list of 5,000 words form the LScDC [2]. Words of LScDC are sorted in descending order by the sum (S) of RIGs in categories and the top 5,000 words are selected to be included in the LScT. We consider these 5,000 words as the most meaningful words in the scientific corpus. In other words, meaningfulness of words evaluated by words’ average informativeness in the categories and the list of these words are considered as a ‘thesaurus’ for science. The LScT with value of sum can be found as CSV file with the published archive. Published archive contains following files:1) Word_Category_RIG_Matrix.csv: A 103,998 by 254 matrix where columns are 252 WoS categories, the sum (S) and the maximum (M) of RIGs in categories (last two columns of the matrix), and rows are words of LScDC. Each entry in the first 252 columns is RIG from the word to the category. Words are ordered as in the LScDC.2) Word_Category_Frequency_Matrix.csv: A 103,998 by 252 matrix where columns are 252 WoS categories and rows are words of LScDC. Each entry of the matrix is the number of texts containing the word in the corresponding category. Words are ordered as in the LScDC.3) LScT.csv: List of words of LScT with sum (S) values. 4) Text_No_in_Cat.csv: The number of texts in categories. 5) Categories_in_Documents.csv: List of WoS categories for each document of the LSC.6) README.txt: Description of Word-Category RIG Matrix, Word-Category Frequency Matrix and LScT and forming procedures.7) README.pdf (same as 6 in PDF format)References[1] Suzen, Neslihan (2019): LSC (Leicester Scientific Corpus). figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.9449639.v2[2] Suzen, Neslihan (2019): LScDC (Leicester Scientific Dictionary-Core). figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.9896579.v3[3] Web of Science. (15 July). Available: https://apps.webofknowledge.com/[4] WoS Subject Categories. Available: https://images.webofknowledge.com/WOKRS56B5/help/WOS/hp_subject_category_terms_tasca.html [5] Suzen, N., Mirkes, E. M., & Gorban, A. N. (2019). LScDC-new large scientific dictionary. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.06858. [6] Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell system technical journal, 27(3), 379-423.

The graph shows the changes in the impact factor of ^ and its corresponding percentile for the sake of comparison with the entire literature. Impact Factor is the most common scientometric index, which is defined by the number of citations of papers in two preceding years divided by the number of papers published in those years.

In a large network of computers or wireless sensors, each of the components (henceforth, peers) has some data about the global state of the system. Much of the system's functionality such as message routing, information retrieval and load sharing relies on modeling the global state. We refer to the outcome of the function (e.g., the load experienced by each peer) as the emph{model} of the system. Since the state of the system is constantly changing, it is necessary to keep the models up-to-date. Computing global data mining models e.g. decision trees, k-means clustering in large distributed systems may be very costly due to the scale of the system and due to communication cost, which may be high. The cost further increases in a dynamic scenario when the data changes rapidly. In this paper we describe a two step approach for dealing with these costs. First, we describe a highly efficient emph{local} algorithm which can be used to monitor a wide class of data mining models. Then, we use this algorithm as a feedback loop for the monitoring of complex functions of the data such as its k-means clustering. The theoretical claims are corroborated with a thorough experimental analysis.

Dataset

This dataset was created by ddpr raju

Contents

OntoDM-core defines the most essential data mining entities in a three-layered ontological structure comprising of a specification, an implementation and an application layer. It provides a representational framework for the description of mining structured data, and in addition provides taxonomies of datasets, data mining tasks, generalizations, data mining algorithms and constraints, based on the type of data. OntoDM-core is designed to support a wide range of applications/use cases, such as semantic annotation of data mining algorithms, datasets and results; annotation of QSAR studies in the context of drug discovery investigations; and disambiguation of terms in text mining. (from abstract)

Data supporting the Master thesis "Monitoring von Open Data Praktiken - Herausforderungen beim Auffinden von Datenpublikationen am Beispiel der Publikationen von Forschenden der TU Dresden" (Monitoring open data practices - challenges in finding data publications using the example of publications by researchers at TU Dresden) - Katharina Zinke, Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaften, Humboldt-Universität Berlin, 2023

This ZIP-File contains the data the thesis is based on, interim exports of the results and the R script with all pre-processing, data merging and analyses carried out. The documentation of the additional, explorative analysis is also available. The actual PDFs and text files of the scientific papers used are not included as they are published open access.

The folder structure is shown below with the file names and a brief description of the contents of each file. For details concerning the analyses approach, please refer to the master's thesis (publication following soon).

## Data sources

Folder 01_SourceData/

- PLOS-Dataset_v2_Mar23.csv (PLOS-OSI dataset)

- ScopusSearch_ExportResults.csv (export of Scopus search results from Scopus)

- ScopusSearch_ExportResults.ris (export of Scopus search results from Scopus)

- Zotero_Export_ScopusSearch.csv (export of the file names and DOIs of the Scopus search results from Zotero)

## Automatic classification

Folder 02_AutomaticClassification/

- (NOT INCLUDED) PDFs folder (Folder for PDFs of all publications identified by the Scopus search, named AuthorLastName_Year_PublicationTitle_Title)

- (NOT INCLUDED) PDFs_to_text folder (Folder for all texts extracted from the PDFs by ODDPub, named AuthorLastName_Year_PublicationTitle_Title)

- PLOS_ScopusSearch_matched.csv (merge of the Scopus search results with the PLOS_OSI dataset for the files contained in both)

- oddpub_results_wDOIs.csv (results file of the ODDPub classification)

- PLOS_ODDPub.csv (merge of the results file of the ODDPub classification with the PLOS-OSI dataset for the publications contained in both)

## Manual coding

Folder 03_ManualCheck/

- CodeSheet_ManualCheck.txt (Code sheet with descriptions of the variables for manual coding)

- ManualCheck_2023-06-08.csv (Manual coding results file)

- PLOS_ODDPub_Manual.csv (Merge of the results file of the ODDPub and PLOS-OSI classification with the results file of the manual coding)

## Explorative analysis for the discoverability of open data

Folder04_FurtherAnalyses

Proof_of_of_Concept_Open_Data_Monitoring.pdf (Description of the explorative analysis of the discoverability of open data publications using the example of a researcher) - in German

## R-Script

Analyses_MA_OpenDataMonitoring.R (R-Script for preparing, merging and analyzing the data and for performing the ODDPub algorithm)

Dataset

This dataset was created by Balal H

Contents

The purpose of data mining analysis is always to find patterns of the data using certain kind of techiques such as classification or regression. It is not always feasible to apply classification algorithms directly to dataset. Before doing any work on the data, the data has to be pre-processed and this process normally involves feature selection and dimensionality reduction. We tried to use clustering as a way to reduce the dimension of the data and create new features. Based on our project, after using clustering prior to classification, the performance has not improved much. The reason why it has not improved could be the features we selected to perform clustering are not well suited for it. Because of the nature of the data, classification tasks are going to provide more information to work with in terms of improving knowledge and overall performance metrics. From the dimensionality reduction perspective: It is different from Principle Component Analysis which guarantees finding the best linear transformation that reduces the number of dimensions with a minimum loss of information. Using clusters as a technique of reducing the data dimension will lose a lot of information since clustering techniques are based a metric of 'distance'. At high dimensions euclidean distance loses pretty much all meaning. Therefore using clustering as a "Reducing" dimensionality by mapping data points to cluster numbers is not always good since you may lose almost all the information. From the creating new features perspective: Clustering analysis creates labels based on the patterns of the data, it brings uncertainties into the data. By using clustering prior to classification, the decision on the number of clusters will highly affect the performance of the clustering, then affect the performance of classification. If the part of features we use clustering techniques on is very suited for it, it might increase the overall performance on classification. For example, if the features we use k-means on are numerical and the dimension is small, the overall classification performance may be better. We did not lock in the clustering outputs using a random_state in the effort to see if they were stable. Our assumption was that if the results vary highly from run to run which they definitely did, maybe the data just does not cluster well with the methods selected at all. Basically, the ramification we saw was that our results are not much better than random when applying clustering to the data preprocessing. Finally, it is important to ensure a feedback loop is in place to continuously collect the same data in the same format from which the models were created. This feedback loop can be used to measure the model real world effectiveness and also to continue to revise the models from time to time as things change.

The LSC (Leicester Scientific Corpus)

April 2020 by Neslihan Suzen, PhD student at the University of Leicester (ns433@leicester.ac.uk) Supervised by Prof Alexander Gorban and Dr Evgeny MirkesThe data are extracted from the Web of Science [1]. You may not copy or distribute these data in whole or in part without the written consent of Clarivate Analytics.[Version 2] A further cleaning is applied in Data Processing for LSC Abstracts in Version 1*. Details of cleaning procedure are explained in Step 6.* Suzen, Neslihan (2019): LSC (Leicester Scientific Corpus). figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.9449639.v1.Getting StartedThis text provides the information on the LSC (Leicester Scientific Corpus) and pre-processing steps on abstracts, and describes the structure of files to organise the corpus. This corpus is created to be used in future work on the quantification of the meaning of research texts and make it available for use in Natural Language Processing projects.LSC is a collection of abstracts of articles and proceeding papers published in 2014, and indexed by the Web of Science (WoS) database [1]. The corpus contains only documents in English. Each document in the corpus contains the following parts:1. Authors: The list of authors of the paper2. Title: The title of the paper 3. Abstract: The abstract of the paper 4. Categories: One or more category from the list of categories [2]. Full list of categories is presented in file ‘List_of _Categories.txt’. 5. Research Areas: One or more research area from the list of research areas [3]. Full list of research areas is presented in file ‘List_of_Research_Areas.txt’. 6. Total Times cited: The number of times the paper was cited by other items from all databases within Web of Science platform [4] 7. Times cited in Core Collection: The total number of times the paper was cited by other papers within the WoS Core Collection [4]The corpus was collected in July 2018 online and contains the number of citations from publication date to July 2018. We describe a document as the collection of information (about a paper) listed above. The total number of documents in LSC is 1,673,350.Data ProcessingStep 1: Downloading of the Data Online

The dataset is collected manually by exporting documents as Tab-delimitated files online. All documents are available online.Step 2: Importing the Dataset to R

The LSC was collected as TXT files. All documents are extracted to R.Step 3: Cleaning the Data from Documents with Empty Abstract or without CategoryAs our research is based on the analysis of abstracts and categories, all documents with empty abstracts and documents without categories are removed.Step 4: Identification and Correction of Concatenate Words in AbstractsEspecially medicine-related publications use ‘structured abstracts’. Such type of abstracts are divided into sections with distinct headings such as introduction, aim, objective, method, result, conclusion etc. Used tool for extracting abstracts leads concatenate words of section headings with the first word of the section. For instance, we observe words such as ConclusionHigher and ConclusionsRT etc. The detection and identification of such words is done by sampling of medicine-related publications with human intervention. Detected concatenate words are split into two words. For instance, the word ‘ConclusionHigher’ is split into ‘Conclusion’ and ‘Higher’.The section headings in such abstracts are listed below:

Background Method(s) Design Theoretical Measurement(s) Location Aim(s) Methodology Process Abstract Population Approach Objective(s) Purpose(s) Subject(s) Introduction Implication(s) Patient(s) Procedure(s) Hypothesis Measure(s) Setting(s) Limitation(s) Discussion Conclusion(s) Result(s) Finding(s) Material (s) Rationale(s) Implications for health and nursing policyStep 5: Extracting (Sub-setting) the Data Based on Lengths of AbstractsAfter correction, the lengths of abstracts are calculated. ‘Length’ indicates the total number of words in the text, calculated by the same rule as for Microsoft Word ‘word count’ [5].According to APA style manual [6], an abstract should contain between 150 to 250 words. In LSC, we decided to limit length of abstracts from 30 to 500 words in order to study documents with abstracts of typical length ranges and to avoid the effect of the length to the analysis.

Step 6: [Version 2] Cleaning Copyright Notices, Permission polices, Journal Names and Conference Names from LSC Abstracts in Version 1Publications can include a footer of copyright notice, permission policy, journal name, licence, author’s right or conference name below the text of abstract by conferences and journals. Used tool for extracting and processing abstracts in WoS database leads to attached such footers to the text. For example, our casual observation yields that copyright notices such as ‘Published by Elsevier ltd.’ is placed in many texts. To avoid abnormal appearances of words in further analysis of words such as bias in frequency calculation, we performed a cleaning procedure on such sentences and phrases in abstracts of LSC version 1. We removed copyright notices, names of conferences, names of journals, authors’ rights, licenses and permission policies identified by sampling of abstracts.Step 7: [Version 2] Re-extracting (Sub-setting) the Data Based on Lengths of AbstractsThe cleaning procedure described in previous step leaded to some abstracts having less than our minimum length criteria (30 words). 474 texts were removed.Step 8: Saving the Dataset into CSV FormatDocuments are saved into 34 CSV files. In CSV files, the information is organised with one record on each line and parts of abstract, title, list of authors, list of categories, list of research areas, and times cited is recorded in fields.To access the LSC for research purposes, please email to ns433@le.ac.uk.References[1]Web of Science. (15 July). Available: https://apps.webofknowledge.com/ [2]WoS Subject Categories. Available: https://images.webofknowledge.com/WOKRS56B5/help/WOS/hp_subject_category_terms_tasca.html [3]Research Areas in WoS. Available: https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/hp_research_areas_easca.html [4]Times Cited in WoS Core Collection. (15 July). Available: https://support.clarivate.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/article/Web-of-Science-Times-Cited-accessibility-and-variation?language=en_US [5]Word Count. Available: https://support.office.com/en-us/article/show-word-count-3c9e6a11-a04d-43b4-977c-563a0e0d5da3 [6]A. P. Association, Publication manual. American Psychological Association Washington, DC, 1983.

In a large network of computers, wireless sensors, or mobile devices, each of the components (hence, peers) has some data about the global status of the system. Many of the functions of the system, such as routing decisions, search strategies, data cleansing, and the assignment of mutual trust, depend on the global status. Therefore, it is essential that the system be able to detect, and react to, changes in its global status. Computing global predicates in such systems is usually very costly. Mainly because of their scale, and in some cases (e.g., sensor networks) also because of the high cost of communication. The cost further increases when the data changes rapidly (due to state changes, node failure, etc.) and computation has to follow these changes. In this paper we describe a two step approach for dealing with these costs. First, we describe a highly efficient local algorithm which detect when the L2 norm of the average data surpasses a threshold. Then, we use this algorithm as a feedback loop for the monitoring of complex predicates on the data – such as the data’s k-means clustering. The efficiency of the L2 algorithm guarantees that so long as the clustering results represent the data (i.e., the data is stationary) few resources are required. When the data undergoes an epoch change – a change in the underlying distribution – and the model no longer represents it, the feedback loop indicates this and the model is rebuilt. Furthermore, the existence of a feedback loop allows using approximate and “best-effort ” methods for constructing the model; if an ill-fit model is built the feedback loop would indicate so, and the model would be rebuilt.

The graph shows the changes in the impact factor of ^ and its corresponding percentile for the sake of comparison with the entire literature. Impact Factor is the most common scientometric index, which is defined by the number of citations of papers in two preceding years divided by the number of papers published in those years.

In a large network of computers, wireless sensors, or mobile devices, each of the components (hence, peers) has some data about the global status of the system. Many of the functions of the system, such as routing decisions, search strategies, data cleansing, and the assignment of mutual trust, depend on the global status. Therefore, it is essential that the system be able to detect, and react to, changes in its global status. Computing global predicates in such systems is usually very costly. Mainly because of their scale, and in some cases (e.g., sensor networks) also because of the high cost of communication. The cost further increases when the data changes rapidly (due to state changes, node failure, etc.) and computation has to follow these changes. In this paper we describe a two step approach for dealing with these costs. First, we describe a highly efficient local algorithm which detect when the L2 norm of the average data surpasses a threshold. Then, we use this algorithm as a feedback loop for the monitoring of complex predicates on the data – such as the data’s k-means clustering. The efficiency of the L2 algorithm guarantees that so long as the clustering results represent the data (i.e., the data is stationary) few resources are required. When the data undergoes an epoch change – a change in the underlying distribution – and the model no longer represents it, the feedback loop indicates this and the model is rebuilt. Furthermore, the existence of a feedback loop allows using approximate and “best-effort ” methods for constructing the model; if an ill-fit model is built the feedback loop would indicate so, and the model would be rebuilt.

Descriptions of the datasets.

LScD (Leicester Scientific Dictionary)April 2020 by Neslihan Suzen, PhD student at the University of Leicester (ns433@leicester.ac.uk/suzenneslihan@hotmail.com)Supervised by Prof Alexander Gorban and Dr Evgeny Mirkes[Version 3] The third version of LScD (Leicester Scientific Dictionary) is created from the updated LSC (Leicester Scientific Corpus) - Version 2*. All pre-processing steps applied to build the new version of the dictionary are the same as in Version 2** and can be found in description of Version 2 below. We did not repeat the explanation. After pre-processing steps, the total number of unique words in the new version of the dictionary is 972,060. The files provided with this description are also same as described as for LScD Version 2 below.* Suzen, Neslihan (2019): LSC (Leicester Scientific Corpus). figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.9449639.v2** Suzen, Neslihan (2019): LScD (Leicester Scientific Dictionary). figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.9746900.v2[Version 2] Getting StartedThis document provides the pre-processing steps for creating an ordered list of words from the LSC (Leicester Scientific Corpus) [1] and the description of LScD (Leicester Scientific Dictionary). This dictionary is created to be used in future work on the quantification of the meaning of research texts. R code for producing the dictionary from LSC and instructions for usage of the code are available in [2]. The code can be also used for list of texts from other sources, amendments to the code may be required.LSC is a collection of abstracts of articles and proceeding papers published in 2014 and indexed by the Web of Science (WoS) database [3]. Each document contains title, list of authors, list of categories, list of research areas, and times cited. The corpus contains only documents in English. The corpus was collected in July 2018 and contains the number of citations from publication date to July 2018. The total number of documents in LSC is 1,673,824.LScD is an ordered list of words from texts of abstracts in LSC.The dictionary stores 974,238 unique words, is sorted by the number of documents containing the word in descending order. All words in the LScD are in stemmed form of words. The LScD contains the following information:1.Unique words in abstracts2.Number of documents containing each word3.Number of appearance of a word in the entire corpusProcessing the LSCStep 1.Downloading the LSC Online: Use of the LSC is subject to acceptance of request of the link by email. To access the LSC for research purposes, please email to ns433@le.ac.uk. The data are extracted from Web of Science [3]. You may not copy or distribute these data in whole or in part without the written consent of Clarivate Analytics.Step 2.Importing the Corpus to R: The full R code for processing the corpus can be found in the GitHub [2].All following steps can be applied for arbitrary list of texts from any source with changes of parameter. The structure of the corpus such as file format and names (also the position) of fields should be taken into account to apply our code. The organisation of CSV files of LSC is described in README file for LSC [1].Step 3.Extracting Abstracts and Saving Metadata: Metadata that include all fields in a document excluding abstracts and the field of abstracts are separated. Metadata are then saved as MetaData.R. Fields of metadata are: List_of_Authors, Title, Categories, Research_Areas, Total_Times_Cited and Times_cited_in_Core_Collection.Step 4.Text Pre-processing Steps on the Collection of Abstracts: In this section, we presented our approaches to pre-process abstracts of the LSC.1.Removing punctuations and special characters: This is the process of substitution of all non-alphanumeric characters by space. We did not substitute the character “-” in this step, because we need to keep words like “z-score”, “non-payment” and “pre-processing” in order not to lose the actual meaning of such words. A processing of uniting prefixes with words are performed in later steps of pre-processing.2.Lowercasing the text data: Lowercasing is performed to avoid considering same words like “Corpus”, “corpus” and “CORPUS” differently. Entire collection of texts are converted to lowercase.3.Uniting prefixes of words: Words containing prefixes joined with character “-” are united as a word. The list of prefixes united for this research are listed in the file “list_of_prefixes.csv”. The most of prefixes are extracted from [4]. We also added commonly used prefixes: ‘e’, ‘extra’, ‘per’, ‘self’ and ‘ultra’.4.Substitution of words: Some of words joined with “-” in the abstracts of the LSC require an additional process of substitution to avoid losing the meaning of the word before removing the character “-”. Some examples of such words are “z-test”, “well-known” and “chi-square”. These words have been substituted to “ztest”, “wellknown” and “chisquare”. Identification of such words is done by sampling of abstracts form LSC. The full list of such words and decision taken for substitution are presented in the file “list_of_substitution.csv”.5.Removing the character “-”: All remaining character “-” are replaced by space.6.Removing numbers: All digits which are not included in a word are replaced by space. All words that contain digits and letters are kept because alphanumeric characters such as chemical formula might be important for our analysis. Some examples are “co2”, “h2o” and “21st”.7.Stemming: Stemming is the process of converting inflected words into their word stem. This step results in uniting several forms of words with similar meaning into one form and also saving memory space and time [5]. All words in the LScD are stemmed to their word stem.8.Stop words removal: Stop words are words that are extreme common but provide little value in a language. Some common stop words in English are ‘I’, ‘the’, ‘a’ etc. We used ‘tm’ package in R to remove stop words [6]. There are 174 English stop words listed in the package.Step 5.Writing the LScD into CSV Format: There are 1,673,824 plain processed texts for further analysis. All unique words in the corpus are extracted and written in the file “LScD.csv”.The Organisation of the LScDThe total number of words in the file “LScD.csv” is 974,238. Each field is described below:Word: It contains unique words from the corpus. All words are in lowercase and their stem forms. The field is sorted by the number of documents that contain words in descending order.Number of Documents Containing the Word: In this content, binary calculation is used: if a word exists in an abstract then there is a count of 1. If the word exits more than once in a document, the count is still 1. Total number of document containing the word is counted as the sum of 1s in the entire corpus.Number of Appearance in Corpus: It contains how many times a word occurs in the corpus when the corpus is considered as one large document.Instructions for R CodeLScD_Creation.R is an R script for processing the LSC to create an ordered list of words from the corpus [2]. Outputs of the code are saved as RData file and in CSV format. Outputs of the code are:Metadata File: It includes all fields in a document excluding abstracts. Fields are List_of_Authors, Title, Categories, Research_Areas, Total_Times_Cited and Times_cited_in_Core_Collection.File of Abstracts: It contains all abstracts after pre-processing steps defined in the step 4.DTM: It is the Document Term Matrix constructed from the LSC[6]. Each entry of the matrix is the number of times the word occurs in the corresponding document.LScD: An ordered list of words from LSC as defined in the previous section.The code can be used by:1.Download the folder ‘LSC’, ‘list_of_prefixes.csv’ and ‘list_of_substitution.csv’2.Open LScD_Creation.R script3.Change parameters in the script: replace with the full path of the directory with source files and the full path of the directory to write output files4.Run the full code.References[1]N. Suzen. (2019). LSC (Leicester Scientific Corpus) [Dataset]. Available: https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.9449639.v1[2]N. Suzen. (2019). LScD-LEICESTER SCIENTIFIC DICTIONARY CREATION. Available: https://github.com/neslihansuzen/LScD-LEICESTER-SCIENTIFIC-DICTIONARY-CREATION[3]Web of Science. (15 July). Available: https://apps.webofknowledge.com/[4]A. Thomas, "Common Prefixes, Suffixes and Roots," Center for Development and Learning, 2013.[5]C. Ramasubramanian and R. Ramya, "Effective pre-processing activities in text mining using improved porter’s stemming algorithm," International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 4536-4538, 2013.[6]I. Feinerer, "Introduction to the tm Package Text Mining in R," Accessible en ligne: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tm/vignettes/tm.pdf, 2013.

Full title: Mining Distance-Based Outliers in Near Linear Time with Randomization and a Simple Pruning Rule Abstract: Defining outliers by their distance to neighboring examples is a popular approach to finding unusual examples in a data set. Recently, much work has been conducted with the goal of finding fast algorithms for this task. We show that a simple nested loop algorithm that in the worst case is quadratic can give near linear time performance when the data is in random order and a simple pruning rule is used. We test our algorithm on real high-dimensional data sets with millions of examples and show that the near linear scaling holds over several orders of magnitude. Our average case analysis suggests that much of the efficiency is because the time to process non-outliers, which are the majority of examples, does not depend on the size of the data set.

Comparison of the running time(in ms) of the three algorithms.

DATA MINING THE GALAXY ZOO MERGERS STEVEN BAEHR, ARUN VEDACHALAM, KIRK BORNE, AND DANIEL SPONSELLER Abstract. Collisions between pairs of galaxies usually end in the coalescence (merger) of the two galaxies. Collisions and mergers are rare phenomena, yet they may signal the ultimate fate of most galaxies, including our own Milky Way. With the onset of massive collection of astronomical data, a computerized and automated method will be necessary for identifying those colliding galaxies worthy of more detailed study. This project researches methods to accomplish that goal. Astronomical data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and human-provided classifications on merger status from the Galaxy Zoo project are combined and processed with machine learning algorithms. The goal is to determine indicators of merger status based solely on discovering those automated pipeline-generated attributes in the astronomical database that correlate most strongly with the patterns identified through visual inspection by the Galaxy Zoo volunteers. In the end, we aim to provide a new and improved automated procedure for classification of collisions and mergers in future petascale astronomical sky surveys. Both information gain analysis (via the C4.5 decision tree algorithm) and cluster analysis (via the Davies-Bouldin Index) are explored as techniques for finding the strongest correlations between human-identified patterns and existing database attributes. Galaxy attributes measured in the SDSS green waveband images are found to represent the most influential of the attributes for correct classification of collisions and mergers. Only a nominal information gain is noted in this research, however, there is a clear indication of which attributes contribute so that a direction for further study is apparent.

This research used data mining approaches to better understand factors affecting the formation of secondary organic aerosol (SOA). Although numerous laboratory and computational studies have been completed on SOA formation, it is still challenging to determine factors that most influence SOA formation. Experimental data were based on previous work described by Offenberg et al. (2017), where volume concentrations of SOA were measured in 139 laboratory experiments involving the oxidation of single hydrocarbons under different operating conditions. Three different data mining methods were used, including nearest neighbor, decision tree, and pattern mining. Both decision tree and pattern mining approaches identified similar chemical and experimental conditions that were important to SOA formation. Among these important factors included the number of methyl groups, the number of rings and the presence of dinitrogen pentoxide (N2O5). This dataset is associated with the following publication: Olson, D., J. Offenberg, M. Lewandowski, T. Kleindienst, K. Docherty, M. Jaoui, J.D. Krug, and T. Riedel. Data mining approaches to understanding the formation of secondary organic aerosol. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY, USA, 252: 118345, (2021).

Mineral Resource Mines Directory

Operational Mineral Resource Mines Directory

By Homeland Infrastructure Foundation [source]

About this dataset

This dataset provides comprehensive information on operational mineral resource mines, specifically excluding sand and gravel quarries. It offers valuable insights into the locations of these mines, along with detailed data about emergency contact details, directions, and other relevant information.

The dataset covers a wide range of attributes related to the mines, including their feature type and security classification. The names of the mines are also provided, along with their respective areas. Contact information such as phone numbers and addresses can be found for each mine, including additional address details if applicable.

Furthermore, the dataset includes vital geographic information such as cities, states, ZIP codes (including ZIP+4 codes), counties, FIPS codes, directions to the mine's location using text descriptions or maps. Additionally , it reveals important emergency contact details like emergency contact titles and phone numbers.

Information on when contacts were made with each mine is available through contact dates and contact methods used. The geographic precision is also mentioned specifically in relation to locating each mine accurately.

The dataset further classifies mines according to themes set by the Homeland Security Infrastructure Program (HSIPTHEMES). Moreover,the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes help identify specific industry classifications for each mine.

Precise longitude and latitude coordinates enable accurate mapping of each mine's location. Vendor data sources are identified alongside versioning information related to the dataset's content quality control/quality assurance processes qualified under QC_QA classification.

Inspection officers assigned to oversee mining operations are also included as part of this comprehensive database supporting overall security measures employed within mining sites. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code designated for each site provides further clarity regarding its categorization within a specific industrial context.

Lastly,certain textual data sets provide canvass insights pertinentlty defined through Naicsdesrc correlatively providing description based granularity into various types of industries within which these miines operate dynamics chord progressed while embarking onto interphase where industry operates including MINE_TYPE as descriptive horizon including Security Classification visualizes the nature of the Master Miner Site.

The dataset includes data at various geographic levels, such as city, county, state FIPS codes (a standardized coding system for identifying counties in the United States), and multiple subunit numbers that further refine information about specific sections or units within each mine

How to use the dataset

Understanding the Columns

Before exploring the dataset, it's essential to understand the meaning of each column. Here are some key columns to note:

• FEATTYPE: The type of feature or resource mine.
• SECCLASS: The security classification of the mine.
• NAME: The name of the mine.
• AREA_: The area of the mine in numeric format.
• PHONE: The phone number of the mine.
• ADDRESS: The address of the mine.
• ADDRESS2: Additional address information for the mine.
• CITY: The city where the mine is located.
• STATE: The state where the mine is located.
• ZIP: The ZIP code of the mine's location.

• ZIPP4: The ZIP+4 code ofthe minse's location − COUNTY: The county where the mine is located − FIPS: The FIPS code (Federal Information Processing Standards) offor need country_code? − DIRECTIONS: : Directions for findingi tthepmiklet tonatiof ntheG eominformationr m concerns ieinstruction to get there adequately dierscibd by GPS − EMERGTITLE : .Themergency contact title forinounforeseen r emergency situatisononts

  yo gather Relevant dataTo will analyze gather these relevant columns that best fit your research needs tf When extracting data from this dataset using programming languages like Python or Rithcoon try xensuring collect extracteTheserengageyousr directlyebased on these columns, as they cover essential details about the mines, such as their location, contact information,pempany names, and more. The dataset also includes additional subunit information for each mine.

  Discovering Key Insights

• What are the different types of features or resource mines? ...