MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603847311

Query processing and optimization in native xml databases

2006· article· en· W1603847311 on OpenAlexaff
Ning Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePath expressionXPathXQueryXMLQuery languageXML databasePath (computing)Query optimizationDatabaseTheoretical computer scienceInformation retrievalProgramming languageWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract XML has emerged as a semantic markup language for documents as well as the de facto language for data exchange over the World Wide Web. Declarative query languages, such as XPath and XQuery, are proposed for querying over large volumes of XML data. A number of techniques have been proposed to evaluate XML queries more efficiently. Many of these techniques assume a tree model of XML documents and are, therefore, also applicable to other data sources that can be explicitly or implicitly translated into a similar data model. The focus of this thesis is on efficient evaluation and optimization of path expressions in native XML databases. Specifically, the following issues are considered: storage system design, design of physical operators and efficient execution algorithms, and the cost-based query optimizer. The proposed storage system linearizes the tree structure into strings that can be decomposed into disk pages. Simple statistics are kept in the page headers to facilitate I/O-efficient navigation. Based on this storage system, a hybrid approach is developed to evaluate path expressions that exploit the advantages of navigational and join-based

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207