MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1820584689 · doi:10.1109/icde.1998.655769

On querying spreadsheets

2002· article· en· W1820584689 on OpenAlexaff
Laks V. S. Lakshmanan, S. Subramanian, Navin Goyal, R. Krishnamurthy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOnline analytical processingInteroperabilityData warehouseSchema (genetic algorithms)Software engineeringDatabaseGeneralityProgramming languageWorld Wide WebInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considers the problem of querying the data in applications such as spreadsheets and word processors. This problem has several motivations from the perspective of data integration, interoperability and OLAP. We provide an architecture for realizing interoperability among such diverse applications and address the challenges that arise specifically in the context of querying data stored in spreadsheet applications. A fundamental challenge is the lack of a well-defined schema. We propose a framework in which the user can specify the layout of data in a spreadsheet, based on his perception of the important concepts underlying that data. Layout specifications can be viewed as the "physical schema" of a spreadsheet. We motivate the concept of an abstract database machine (ADM) that uses the layout specifications to provide a relational view of the data in spreadsheet applications and, similar to a DBMS, supports efficient querying of the spreadsheet data. We develop a methodology for building ADMs for spreadsheets and describe our implementation of an ADM for Microsoft Excel applications, based on the above methodology. Our implementation platform is IBM PCs running Windows NT, Microsoft Office and OLE 2.0. We demonstrate the generality and practicality of our approach by developing a formal characterization of the class of spreadsheets that can be handled in our framework. Our results show that the approach is capable of handling a broad class of naturally occurring spreadsheet applications. This work is part of an office tool integration project.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.036
Open science0.0080.009
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations12
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207