MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1542320810

Utilizing histogram information

2001· article· en· W1542320810 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

VenueConference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistogramComputer scienceQuantileData miningOracleValue (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsStatisticsImage (mathematics)Machine learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many commercial database management systems (e.g., DB2, Oracle, etc.) make use of histograms of the value distribution of individual attributes of relations in order to make good selections of query execution plans. These histograms contain partial information about the actual distribution, such as which attribute values occur most frequently, and how often each one occurs, and what value occurs at the kth quantile when the values are sorted.In this paper, we quantitatively assess the information gain (or uncertainty reduction) due to each of these types of histogram information both individually and in combination. Correspondingly, we observe how the accuracy of estimating frequencies of individual values improves with the availability of each of these types of histogram information. We suggest guidelines for constructing histograms tailored to each individual attribute depending on the characteristics of its attribute value distribution.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.271 · 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