Gain control over your integration evaluations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integration systems are typically evaluated using a few real-world scenarios (e.g., bibliographical or biological datasets) or using synthetic scenarios (e.g., based on star-schemas or other patterns for schemas and constraints). Reusing such evaluations is a cumbersome task because their focus is usually limited to showcasing a specific feature of an approach. This makes it difficult to compare integration solutions, understand their generality, and understand their performance for different application scenarios. Based on this observation, we demonstrate some of the requirements for developing integration benchmarks. We argue that the major abstractions used for integration problems have converged in the last decade which enables the application of robust empirical methods to integration problems (from schema evolution, to data exchange, to answering queries using views and many more). Specifically, we demonstrate that schema mappings are the main abstraction that now drives most integration solutions and show how a metadata generator can be used to create more credible evaluations of the performance and scalability of data integration systems. We will use the demonstration to evangelize for more robust, shared empirical evaluations of data integration systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.106 | 0.477 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.012 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".