MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W150096117

On the twig joins

2006· article· en· W150096117 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Conference on Computers · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTwigJoinsXMLRedundancy (engineering)XML Schema (W3C)Document Structure DescriptionTree (set theory)Encoding (memory)Theoretical computer scienceInformation retrievalData miningProgramming languageMathematicsDocument type definitionArtificial intelligenceCombinatorics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An XML twig query, represented as a labeled tree, is essentially a complex predicate on both structure and content of an XML document. Twig query matching has been considered as a core operation in querying tree structured XML data. Among all the proposed strategies, the method based on the so-called stack encoding aims at the reduction of intermediate results by compressing matching paths. The idea itself is very interesting. However, the processes for generating compressed paths suffer substantial redundancy and can be greatly improved. In this paper, we analyze this method and show that the time complexities of path generation in its two main procedures: PathStack and TwigStack can be reduced from O(m2n) to O(mn), where m and n are the sizes of the query tree and document tree, respectively.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it