This dataset is essentially the metadata from 164 datasets. Each of its lines concerns a dataset from which 22 features have been extracted, which are used to classify each dataset into one of the categories 0-Unmanaged, 2-INV, 3-SI, 4-NOA (DatasetType).

This Dataset consists of 164 Rows. Each row is the metadata of an other dataset. The target column is datasetType which has 4 values indicating the dataset type. These are:

2 - Invoice detail (INV): This dataset type is a special report (usually called Detailed Sales Statement) produced by a Company Accounting or an Enterprise Resource Planning software (ERP). Using a INV-type dataset directly for ARM is extremely convenient for users as it relieves them from the tedious work of transforming data into another more suitable form. INV-type data input typically includes a header but, only two of its attributes are essential for data mining. The first attribute serves as the grouping identifier creating a unique transaction (e.g., Invoice ID, Order Number), while the second attribute contains the items utilized for data mining (e.g., Product Code, Product Name, Product ID).

3 - Sparse Item (SI): This type is widespread in Association Rules Mining (ARM). It involves a header and a fixed number of columns. Each item corresponds to a column. Each row represents a transaction. The typical cell stores a value, usually one character in length, that depicts the presence or absence of the item in the corresponding transaction. The absence character must be identified or declared before the Association Rules Mining process takes place.

4 - Nominal Attributes (NOA): This type is commonly used in Machine Learning and Data Mining tasks. It involves a fixed number of columns. Each column registers nominal/categorical values. The presence of a header row is optional. However, in cases where no header is provided, there is a risk of extracting incorrect rules if similar values exist in different attributes of the dataset. The potential values for each attribute can vary.

0 - Unmanaged for ARM: On the other hand, not all datasets are suitable for extracting useful association rules or frequent item sets. For instance, datasets characterized predominantly by numerical features with arbitrary values, or datasets that involve fragmented or mixed types of data types. For such types of datasets, ARM processing becomes possible only by introducing a data discretization stage which in turn introduces information loss. Such types of datasets are not considered in the present treatise and they are termed (0) Unmanaged in the sequel.

The dataset type is crucial to determine for ARM, and the current dataset is used to classify the dataset's type using a Supervised Machine Learning Model.

There is and another dataset type named 1 - Market Basket List (MBL) where each dataset row is a transaction. A transaction involves a variable number of items. However, due to this characteristic, these datasets can be easily categorized using procedural programming and DoD does not include instances of them. For more details about Dataset Types please refer to article "WebApriori: a web application for association rules mining". https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-49663-0_44

Distributed data mining from privacy-sensitive multi-party data is likely to play an important role in the next generation of integrated vehicle health monitoring systems. For example, consider an airline manufacturer [tex]$\mathcal{C}$[/tex] manufacturing an aircraft model [tex]$A$[/tex] and selling it to five different airline operating companies [tex]$\mathcal{V}_1 \dots \mathcal{V}_5$[/tex]. These aircrafts, during their operation, generate huge amount of data. Mining this data can reveal useful information regarding the health and operability of the aircraft which can be useful for disaster management and prediction of efficient operating regimes. Now if the manufacturer [tex]$\mathcal{C}$[/tex] wants to analyze the performance data collected from different aircrafts of model-type [tex]$A$[/tex] belonging to different airlines then central collection of data for subsequent analysis may not be an option. It should be noted that the result of this analysis may be statistically more significant if the data for aircraft model [tex]$A$[/tex] across all companies were available to [tex]$\mathcal{C}$[/tex]. The potential problems arising out of such a data mining scenario are:

These are artificially made beginner data mining datasets for learning purposes.

Case study:

• FEELS LIKE HOME is an interior design company, which has about 100 000 registered customers and provide services for more than 200 000 clients annually.
• The range of the products can be divided in 5 major classes: Decor accessories, Furniture, Textiles, Lighting and Art with an option to purchase Limited Edition versions for an extra charge. These goods can be distributed by 3 channels: Physical stores, yearly catalogs and the companies’ website.
• FEELS LIKE HOME has been doing a great job during recent years, achieving decent profits and revenues, but the future remains volatile. In order to solve the problem of instability the company is planning to launch new marketing program, especially to improve the accuracy of marketing campaigns.

The aim of FeelsLikeHome_Campaign dataset is to create project is in which you build a predictive model (using a sample of 2500 clients’ data) forecasting the highest profit from the next marketing campaign, which will indicate the customers who will be the most likely to accept the offer.

The aim of FeelsLikeHome_Cluster dataset is to create project in which you split company’s customer base on homogenous clusters (using 5000 clients’ data) and propose draft marketing strategies for these groups based on customer behavior and information about their profile.

FeelsLikeHome_Score dataset can be used to calculate total profit from marketing campaign and for producing a list of sorted customers by the probability of the dependent variable in predictive model problem.

The complete dataset used in the analysis comprises 36 samples, each described by 11 numeric features and 1 target. The attributes considered were caspase 3/7 activity, Mitotracker red CMXRos area and intensity (3 h and 24 h incubations with both compounds), Mitosox oxidation (3 h incubation with the referred compounds) and oxidation rate, DCFDA fluorescence (3 h and 24 h incubations with either compound) and oxidation rate, and DQ BSA hydrolysis. The target of each instance corresponds to one of the 9 possible classes (4 samples per class): Control, 6.25, 12.5, 25 and 50 µM for 6-OHDA and 0.03, 0.06, 0.125 and 0.25 µM for rotenone. The dataset is balanced, it does not contain any missing values and data was standardized across features. The small number of samples prevented a full and strong statistical analysis of the results. Nevertheless, it allowed the identification of relevant hidden patterns and trends.

Exploratory data analysis, information gain, hierarchical clustering, and supervised predictive modeling were performed using Orange Data Mining version 3.25.1 [41]. Hierarchical clustering was performed using the Euclidean distance metric and weighted linkage. Cluster maps were plotted to relate the features with higher mutual information (in rows) with instances (in columns), with the color of each cell representing the normalized level of a particular feature in a specific instance. The information is grouped both in rows and in columns by a two-way hierarchical clustering method using the Euclidean distances and average linkage. Stratified cross-validation was used to train the supervised decision tree. A set of preliminary empirical experiments were performed to choose the best parameters for each algorithm, and we verified that, within moderate variations, there were no significant changes in the outcome. The following settings were adopted for the decision tree algorithm: minimum number of samples in leaves: 2; minimum number of samples required to split an internal node: 5; stop splitting when majority reaches: 95%; criterion: gain ratio. The performance of the supervised model was assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, F-measure and area under the ROC curve (AUC) metrics.

A DataSet of Supply Chains used by the company DataCo Global was used for the analysis. Dataset of Supply Chain , which allows the use of Machine Learning Algorithms and R Software. Areas of important registered activities : Provisioning , Production , Sales , Commercial Distribution.It also allows the correlation of Structured Data with Unstructured Data for knowledge generation.

Type Data : Structured Data : DataCoSupplyChainDataset.csv Unstructured Data : tokenized_access_logs.csv (Clickstream)

Types of Products : Clothing , Sports , and Electronic Supplies

Additionally it is attached in another file called DescriptionDataCoSupplyChain.csv, the description of each of the variables of the DataCoSupplyChainDatasetc.csv.

Distributed data mining from privacy-sensitive multi-party data is likely to play an important role in the next generation of integrated vehicle health monitoring systems. For example, consider an airline manufacturer [tex]$\mathcal{C}$[/tex] manufacturing an aircraft model [tex]$A$[/tex] and selling it to five different airline operating companies [tex]$\mathcal{V}_1 \dots \mathcal{V}_5$[/tex]. These aircrafts, during their operation, generate huge amount of data. Mining this data can reveal useful information regarding the health and operability of the aircraft which can be useful for disaster management and prediction of efficient operating regimes. Now if the manufacturer [tex]$\mathcal{C}$[/tex] wants to analyze the performance data collected from different aircrafts of model-type [tex]$A$[/tex] belonging to different airlines then central collection of data for subsequent analysis may not be an option. It should be noted that the result of this analysis may be statistically more significant if the data for aircraft model [tex]$A$[/tex] across all companies were available to [tex]$\mathcal{C}$[/tex]. The potential problems arising out of such a data mining scenario are:

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 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.

Subject Area: Text Mining Description: This is the dataset used for the SIAM 2007 Text Mining competition. This competition focused on developing text mining algorithms for document classification. The documents in question were aviation safety reports that documented one or more problems that occurred during certain flights. The goal was to label the documents with respect to the types of problems that were described. This is a subset of the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) dataset, which is publicly available. How Data Was Acquired: The data for this competition came from human generated reports on incidents that occurred during a flight. Sample Rates, Parameter Description, and Format: There is one document per incident. The datasets are in raw text format. All documents for each set will be contained in a single file. Each row in this file corresponds to a single document. The first characters on each line of the file are the document number and a tilde separats the document number from the text itself. Anomalies/Faults: This is a document category classification problem.

Market Basket Analysis

Market basket analysis with Apriori algorithm

The retailer wants to target customers with suggestions on itemset that a customer is most likely to purchase .I was given dataset contains data of a retailer; the transaction data provides data around all the transactions that have happened over a period of time. Retailer will use result to grove in his industry and provide for customer suggestions on itemset, we be able increase customer engagement and improve customer experience and identify customer behavior. I will solve this problem with use Association Rules type of unsupervised learning technique that checks for the dependency of one data item on another data item.

Introduction

Association Rule is most used when you are planning to build association in different objects in a set. It works when you are planning to find frequent patterns in a transaction database. It can tell you what items do customers frequently buy together and it allows retailer to identify relationships between the items.

An Example of Association Rules

Assume there are 100 customers, 10 of them bought Computer Mouth, 9 bought Mat for Mouse and 8 bought both of them. - bought Computer Mouth => bought Mat for Mouse - support = P(Mouth & Mat) = 8/100 = 0.08 - confidence = support/P(Mat for Mouse) = 0.08/0.09 = 0.89 - lift = confidence/P(Computer Mouth) = 0.89/0.10 = 8.9 This just simple example. In practice, a rule needs the support of several hundred transactions, before it can be considered statistically significant, and datasets often contain thousands or millions of transactions.

Strategy

• Data Import
• Data Understanding and Exploration
• Transformation of the data – so that is ready to be consumed by the association rules algorithm
• Running association rules
• Exploring the rules generated
• Filtering the generated rules
• Visualization of Rule

Dataset Description

• File name: Assignment-1_Data
• List name: retaildata
• File format: . xlsx
• Number of Row: 522065

• Number of Attributes: 7

  • BillNo: 6-digit number assigned to each transaction. Nominal.
  • Itemname: Product name. Nominal.
  • Quantity: The quantities of each product per transaction. Numeric.
  • Date: The day and time when each transaction was generated. Numeric.
  • Price: Product price. Numeric.
  • CustomerID: 5-digit number assigned to each customer. Nominal.
  • Country: Name of the country where each customer resides. Nominal.

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/91852182/145270162-fc53e5a3-4ad1-4d06-b0e0-228aabcf6b70.png">

Libraries in R

First, we need to load required libraries. Shortly I describe all libraries.

• arules - Provides the infrastructure for representing, manipulating and analyzing transaction data and patterns (frequent itemsets and association rules).
• arulesViz - Extends package 'arules' with various visualization. techniques for association rules and item-sets. The package also includes several interactive visualizations for rule exploration.
• tidyverse - The tidyverse is an opinionated collection of R packages designed for data science.
• readxl - Read Excel Files in R.
• plyr - Tools for Splitting, Applying and Combining Data.
• ggplot2 - A system for 'declaratively' creating graphics, based on "The Grammar of Graphics". You provide the data, tell 'ggplot2' how to map variables to aesthetics, what graphical primitives to use, and it takes care of the details.
• knitr - Dynamic Report generation in R.
• magrittr- Provides a mechanism for chaining commands with a new forward-pipe operator, %>%. This operator will forward a value, or the result of an expression, into the next function call/expression. There is flexible support for the type of right-hand side expressions.
• dplyr - A fast, consistent tool for working with data frame like objects, both in memory and out of memory.
• tidyverse - This package is designed to make it easy to install and load multiple 'tidyverse' packages in a single step.

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/91852182/145270210-49c8e1aa-9753-431b-a8d5-99601bc76cb5.png">

Data Pre-processing

Next, we need to upload Assignment-1_Data. xlsx to R to read the dataset.Now we can see our data in R.

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/91852182/145270229-514f0983-3bbb-4cd3-be64-980e92656a02.png"> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/91852182/145270251-6f6f6472-8817-435c-a995-9bc4bfef10d1.png">

After we will clear our data frame, will remove missing values.

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/91852182/145270286-05854e1a-2b6c-490e-ab30-9e99e731eacb.png">

To apply Association Rule mining, we need to convert dataframe into transaction data to make all items that are bought together in one invoice will be in ...

MusicOSet is an open and enhanced dataset of musical elements (artists, songs and albums) based on musical popularity classification. Provides a directly accessible collection of data suitable for numerous tasks in music data mining (e.g., data visualization, classification, clustering, similarity search, MIR, HSS and so forth). To create MusicOSet, the potential information sources were divided into three main categories: music popularity sources, metadata sources, and acoustic and lyrical features sources. Data from all three categories were initially collected between January and May 2019. Nevertheless, the update and enhancement of the data happened in June 2019.

The attractive features of MusicOSet include:

Integration and centralization of different musical data sources

Calculation of popularity scores and classification of hits and non-hits musical elements, varying from 1962 to 2018

Enriched metadata for music, artists, and albums from the US popular music industry

Availability of acoustic and lyrical resources

Unrestricted access in two formats: SQL database and compressed .csv files

This dataset contains metadata (title, abstract, date of publication, field, etc) for around 1 million academic articles. Each record contains additional information on the country of study and whether the article makes use of data. Machine learning tools were used to classify the country of study and data use.

Our data source of academic articles is the Semantic Scholar Open Research Corpus (S2ORC) (Lo et al. 2020). The corpus contains more than 130 million English language academic papers across multiple disciplines. The papers included in the Semantic Scholar corpus are gathered directly from publishers, from open archives such as arXiv or PubMed, and crawled from the internet.

We placed some restrictions on the articles to make them usable and relevant for our purposes. First, only articles with an abstract and parsed PDF or latex file are included in the analysis. The full text of the abstract is necessary to classify the country of study and whether the article uses data. The parsed PDF and latex file are important for extracting important information like the date of publication and field of study. This restriction eliminated a large number of articles in the original corpus. Around 30 million articles remain after keeping only articles with a parsable (i.e., suitable for digital processing) PDF, and around 26% of those 30 million are eliminated when removing articles without an abstract. Second, only articles from the year 2000 to 2020 were considered. This restriction eliminated an additional 9% of the remaining articles. Finally, articles from the following fields of study were excluded, as we aim to focus on fields that are likely to use data produced by countries’ national statistical system: Biology, Chemistry, Engineering, Physics, Materials Science, Environmental Science, Geology, History, Philosophy, Math, Computer Science, and Art. Fields that are included are: Economics, Political Science, Business, Sociology, Medicine, and Psychology. This third restriction eliminated around 34% of the remaining articles. From an initial corpus of 136 million articles, this resulted in a final corpus of around 10 million articles.

Due to the intensive computer resources required, a set of 1,037,748 articles were randomly selected from the 10 million articles in our restricted corpus as a convenience sample.

The empirical approach employed in this project utilizes text mining with Natural Language Processing (NLP). The goal of NLP is to extract structured information from raw, unstructured text. In this project, NLP is used to extract the country of study and whether the paper makes use of data. We will discuss each of these in turn.

To determine the country or countries of study in each academic article, two approaches are employed based on information found in the title, abstract, or topic fields. The first approach uses regular expression searches based on the presence of ISO3166 country names. A defined set of country names is compiled, and the presence of these names is checked in the relevant fields. This approach is transparent, widely used in social science research, and easily extended to other languages. However, there is a potential for exclusion errors if a country’s name is spelled non-standardly.

The second approach is based on Named Entity Recognition (NER), which uses machine learning to identify objects from text, utilizing the spaCy Python library. The Named Entity Recognition algorithm splits text into named entities, and NER is used in this project to identify countries of study in the academic articles. SpaCy supports multiple languages and has been trained on multiple spellings of countries, overcoming some of the limitations of the regular expression approach. If a country is identified by either the regular expression search or NER, it is linked to the article. Note that one article can be linked to more than one country.

The second task is to classify whether the paper uses data. A supervised machine learning approach is employed, where 3500 publications were first randomly selected and manually labeled by human raters using the Mechanical Turk service (Paszke et al. 2019).[1] To make sure the human raters had a similar and appropriate definition of data in mind, they were given the following instructions before seeing their first paper:

Each of these documents is an academic article. The goal of this study is to measure whether a specific academic article is using data and from which country the data came.

There are two classification tasks in this exercise:

1. identifying whether an academic article is using data from any country

2. Identifying from which country that data came.

For task 1, we are looking specifically at the use of data. Data is any information that has been collected, observed, generated or created to produce research findings. As an example, a study that reports findings or analysis using a survey data, uses data. Some clues to indicate that a study does use data includes whether a survey or census is described, a statistical model estimated, or a table or means or summary statistics is reported.

After an article is classified as using data, please note the type of data used. The options are population or business census, survey data, administrative data, geospatial data, private sector data, and other data. If no data is used, then mark "Not applicable". In cases where multiple data types are used, please click multiple options.[2]

For task 2, we are looking at the country or countries that are studied in the article. In some cases, no country may be applicable. For instance, if the research is theoretical and has no specific country application. In some cases, the research article may involve multiple countries. In these cases, select all countries that are discussed in the paper.

We expect between 10 and 35 percent of all articles to use data.

The median amount of time that a worker spent on an article, measured as the time between when the article was accepted to be classified by the worker and when the classification was submitted was 25.4 minutes. If human raters were exclusively used rather than machine learning tools, then the corpus of 1,037,748 articles examined in this study would take around 50 years of human work time to review at a cost of $3,113,244, which assumes a cost of $3 per article as was paid to MTurk workers.

A model is next trained on the 3,500 labelled articles. We use a distilled version of the BERT (bidirectional Encoder Representations for transformers) model to encode raw text into a numeric format suitable for predictions (Devlin et al. (2018)). BERT is pre-trained on a large corpus comprising the Toronto Book Corpus and Wikipedia. The distilled version (DistilBERT) is a compressed model that is 60% the size of BERT and retains 97% of the language understanding capabilities and is 60% faster (Sanh, Debut, Chaumond, Wolf 2019). We use PyTorch to produce a model to classify articles based on the labeled data. Of the 3,500 articles that were hand coded by the MTurk workers, 900 are fed to the machine learning model. 900 articles were selected because of computational limitations in training the NLP model. A classification of “uses data” was assigned if the model predicted an article used data with at least 90% confidence.

The performance of the models classifying articles to countries and as using data or not can be compared to the classification by the human raters. We consider the human raters as giving us the ground truth. This may underestimate the model performance if the workers at times got the allocation wrong in a way that would not apply to the model. For instance, a human rater could mistake the Republic of Korea for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. If both humans and the model perform the same kind of errors, then the performance reported here will be overestimated.

The model was able to predict whether an article made use of data with 87% accuracy evaluated on the set of articles held out of the model training. The correlation between the number of articles written about each country using data estimated under the two approaches is given in the figure below. The number of articles represents an aggregate total of

This file contains a number of randomly generated datasets. The properties of each dataset are indicated in the name of each respective file: 'C' indicates the number of classes, 'F' indicates the number of features, 'Ne' indicates the number of objects contained in each class, 'A' is related to the average separation between classes and 'R' is an index used to differentiate distinct random trials. So, for instance, the file C2F10N2Ne5A1.2R0 is a dataset containing 2 classes, 10 features, 5 objects for each class and having a typical separation between classes of 1.2. The methodology used for generating the datasets is described in the accompanying reference.

Within the realm of data mining and analytics, this carefully curated dataset, hosted on Kaggle, stands as an invaluable resource for educational purposes. With a substantial volume of 15,000 records, this dataset is an open-source treasure trove, devoid of copyright restrictions, expressly designed to empower students and analysts in their pursuit of excellence in data mining and analytics. The dataset's primary focus lies in predicting Credit Scores, utilizing a binary variable to distinguish between "good" and "bad" credit ratings. It spans a diverse range of information types, incorporating nominal, continuous, ordinal, and binary variables to provide a comprehensive understanding of creditworthiness. As we embark on this educational journey, the dataset serves as a foundation for building predictive models, including but not limited to Logistics, CHAID, CART, as well as other notable models such as Random Forest, Support Vector Machines (SVM), and Gradient Boosting. By encompassing a broad spectrum of models, we aim to offer students and analysts a holistic view of various data mining techniques and their applications. The overarching goal remains to equip individuals with the skills and knowledge necessary to excel in the dynamic fields of data mining and analytics.

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.

Context

To make this a seamless process, I cleaned the data and delete many variables that I thought were not important to our dataset. I then uploaded all of those files to Kaggle for each of you to download. The rideshare_data has both lyft and uber but it is still a cleaned version from the dataset we downloaded from Kaggle.

Use of Data Files

You can easily subset the data into the car types that you will be modeling by first loading the csv into R, here is the code for how you do this:

This loads the file into R

df<-read.csv('uber.csv')

The next codes is to subset the data into specific car types. The example below only has Uber 'Black' car types.

df_black<-subset(uber_df, uber_df$name == 'Black')

This next portion of code will be to load it into R. First, we must write this dataframe into a csv file on our computer in order to load it into R.

write.csv(df_black, "nameofthefileyouwanttosaveas.csv")

The file will appear in you working directory. If you are not familiar with your working directory. Run this code:

getwd()

The output will be the file path to your working directory. You will find the file you just created in that folder.

Inspiration

Your data will be in front of the world's largest data science community. What questions do you want to see answered?

There has been a tremendous increase in the volume of sensor data collected over the last decade for different monitoring tasks. For example, petabytes of earth science data are collected from modern satellites, in-situ sensors and different climate models. Similarly, huge amount of flight operational data is downloaded for different commercial airlines. These different types of datasets need to be analyzed for finding outliers. Information extraction from such rich data sources using advanced data mining methodologies is a challenging task not only due to the massive volume of data, but also because these datasets are physically stored at different geographical locations with only a subset of features available at any location. Moving these petabytes of data to a single location may waste a lot of bandwidth. To solve this problem, in this paper, we present a novel algorithm which can identify outliers in the entire data without moving all the data to a single location. The method we propose only centralizes a very small sample from the different data subsets at different locations. We analytically prove and experimentally verify that the algorithm offers high accuracy compared to complete centralization with only a fraction of the communication cost. We show that our algorithm is highly relevant to both earth sciences and aeronautics by describing applications in these domains. The performance of the algorithm is demonstrated on two large publicly available datasets: (1) the NASA MODIS satellite images and (2) a simulated aviation dataset generated by the ‘Commercial Modular Aero-Propulsion System Simulation’ (CMAPSS).

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)

As there was no large publicly available cross-domain dataset for comparative argument mining, we create one composed of sentences, potentially annotated with BETTER / WORSE markers (the first object is better / worse than the second object) or NONE (the sentence does not contain a comparison of the target objects). The BETTER sentences stand for a pro-argument in favor of the first compared object and WORSE-sentences represent a con-argument and favor the second object. We aim for minimizing dataset domain-specific biases in order to capture the nature of comparison and not the nature of the particular domains, thus decided to control the specificity of domains by the selection of comparison targets. We hypothesized and could confirm in preliminary experiments that comparison targets usually have a common hypernym (i.e., are instances of the same class), which we utilized for selection of the compared objects pairs. The most specific domain we choose, is computer science with comparison targets like programming languages, database products and technology standards such as Bluetooth or Ethernet. Many computer science concepts can be compared objectively (e.g., on transmission speed or suitability for certain applications). The objects for this domain were manually extracted from List of-articles at Wikipedia. In the annotation process, annotators were asked to only label sentences from this domain if they had some basic knowledge in computer science. The second, broader domain is brands. It contains objects of different types (e.g., cars, electronics, and food). As brands are present in everyday life, anyone should be able to label the majority of sentences containing well-known brands such as Coca-Cola or Mercedes. Again, targets for this domain were manually extracted from `List of''-articles at Wikipedia.The third domain is not restricted to any topic: random. For each of 24~randomly selected seed words 10 similar words were collected based on the distributional similarity API of JoBimText (http://www.jobimtext.org). Seed words created using randomlists.com: book, car, carpenter, cellphone, Christmas, coffee, cork, Florida, hamster, hiking, Hoover, Metallica, NBC, Netflix, ninja, pencil, salad, soccer, Starbucks, sword, Tolkien, wine, wood, XBox, Yale.Especially for brands and computer science, the resulting object lists were large (4493 in brands and 1339 in computer science). In a manual inspection, low-frequency and ambiguous objects were removed from all object lists (e.g., RAID (a hardware concept) and Unity (a game engine) are also regularly used nouns). The remaining objects were combined to pairs. For each object type (seed Wikipedia list page or the seed word), all possible combinations were created. These pairs were then used to find sentences containing both objects. The aforementioned approaches to selecting compared objects pairs tend minimize inclusion of the domain specific data, but do not solve the problem fully though. We keep open a question of extending dataset with diverse object pairs including abstract concepts for future work. As for the sentence mining, we used the publicly available index of dependency-parsed sentences from the Common Crawl corpus containing over 14 billion English sentences filtered for duplicates. This index was queried for sentences containing both objects of each pair. For 90% of the pairs, we also added comparative cue words (better, easier, faster, nicer, wiser, cooler, decent, safer, superior, solid, terrific, worse, harder, slower, poorly, uglier, poorer, lousy, nastier, inferior, mediocre) to the query in order to bias the selection towards comparisons but at the same time admit comparisons that do not contain any of the anticipated cues. This was necessary as a random sampling would have resulted in only a very tiny fraction of comparisons. Note that even sentences containing a cue word do not necessarily express a comparison between the desired targets (dog vs. cat: He's the best pet that you can get, better than a dog or cat.). It is thus especially crucial to enable a classifier to learn not to rely on the existence of clue words only (very likely in a random sample of sentences with very few comparisons). For our corpus, we keep pairs with at least 100 retrieved sentences.From all sentences of those pairs, 2500 for each category were randomly sampled as candidates for a crowdsourced annotation that we conducted on figure-eight.com in several small batches. Each sentence was annotated by at least five trusted workers. We ranked annotations by confidence, which is the figure-eight internal measure of combining annotator trust and voting, and discarded annotations with a confidence below 50%. Of all annotated items, 71% received unanimous votes and for over 85% at least 4 out of 5 workers agreed -- rendering the collection procedure aimed at ease of annotation successful.The final dataset contains 7199 sentences with 271 distinct object pairs. The majority of sentences (over 72%) are non-comparative despite biasing the selection with cue words; in 70% of the comparative sentences, the favored target is named first.You can browse though the data here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U8i6EU9GUKmHdPnfwXEuBxi0h3aiRCLPRC-3c9ROiOE/edit?usp=sharing Full description of the dataset is available in the workshop paper at ACL 2019 conference. Please cite this paper if you use the data: Franzek, Mirco, Alexander Panchenko, and Chris Biemann. ""Categorization of Comparative Sentences for Argument Mining."" arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.06152 (2018).@inproceedings{franzek2018categorization, title={Categorization of Comparative Sentences for Argument Mining}, author={Panchenko, Alexander and Bondarenko, and Franzek, Mirco and Hagen, Matthias and Biemann, Chris}, booktitle={Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Argument Mining at ACL'2019}, year={2019}, address={Florence, Italy}}

The "Dataset_HIR" folder contains the data to reproduce the results of the data mining approach proposed in the manuscript titled "Identification of hindered internal rotational mode for complex chemical species: A data mining approach with multivariate logistic regression model".

More specifically, the folder contains the raw electronic structure calculation input data provided by the domain experts as well as the training and testing dataset with the extracted features.

The "Dataset_HIR" folder contains the following subfolders namely:

1. Electronic structure calculation input data: contains the electronic structure calculation input generated by the Gaussian program

   1.1. Testing data: contains the raw data of all training species (each is stored in a separate folder) used for extracting dataset for training and validation phase.

   1.2. Testing data: contains the raw data of all testing species (each is stored in a separate folder) used for extracting data for the testing phase.

2. Dataset 2.1. Training dataset: used to produce the results in Tables 3 and 4 in the manuscript

   + datasetTrain_raw.csv: contains the features for all vibrational modes associated with corresponding labeled species to let the chemists select the Hindered Internal Rotor from the list easily for the training and validation steps.  
   
   + datasetTrain.csv: refines the datasetTrain_raw.csv where the names of the species are all removed to transform the dataset into an appropriate form for the modeling and validation steps.
   

   2.2. Testing dataset: used to produce the results of the data mining approach in Table 5 in the manuscript.

   + datasetTest_raw.csv: contains the features for all vibrational modes of each labeled species to let the chemists select the Hindered Internal Rotor from the list for the testing step.
   
   + datasetTest.csv: refines the datasetTest_raw.csv where the names of the species are all removed to transform the dataset into an appropriate form for the testing step.
   

Note for the Result feature in the dataset: 1 is for the mode needed to be treated as Hindered Internal Rotor, and 0 otherwise.