MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1601845256 · doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-535-8-147

On Building an Index Advisor for Semantic Web Queries

2010· book-chapter· en· W1601845256 on OpenAlexaff
Lubomir Stanchev, Grant Weddell

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndex (typography)Computer scienceInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebSemantic Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current optimization techniques for answering queries over Semantic Web data use realization to precalculate the individuals associated with every concept in the given ontology. However, this technique does not take into account the type of queries, written for example in nRQL or SPARQL-DL, that will arrive at the system. In this paper we propose how this additional knowledge can be used to create query-specific indices. We include experimental results that show how our approach can be used to improve the performance of the Pellet query engine for the popular LUBM benchmark.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applicationsSame topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207