MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1596809600

Suffix arrays: what are they good for?

2006· article· en· W1596809600 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon J. Puglisi, William F. Smyth, Andrew Turpin

Bibliographic record

VenueMurdoch Research Repository (Murdoch University) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSuffixCompressed suffix arrayComputer scienceGeneralized suffix treeSuffix arraySuffix treeTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently the theoretical community has displayed a flurry of interest in suffix arrays, and compressed suffix arrays. New, asymptotically optimal algorithms for construction, search, and compression of suffix arrays have been proposed. In this talk we will present our investigations into the practicalities of these latest developments. In particular, we investigate whether suffix arrays can indeed replace inverted files, as suggested in recent literature on suffix arrays.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.129
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.129
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0110.041
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.012

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMurdoch Research Repository (Murdoch University)Same topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207