MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964417640 · doi:10.1504/ijiids.2010.035772

Processing exact results for sliding window joins over data streams using disk storage

2010· article· en· W1964417640 on OpenAlexaff
Abhirup Chakraborty, Ajit Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Intelligent Information and Database Systems · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoinsComputer scienceSliding window protocolWindow (computing)Data stream miningData streamReal-time computingAlgorithmData miningDistributed computingParallel computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of processing exact results for sliding window joins over data streams with limited memory. Existing approaches deal with memory limitations by shedding loads, and therefore cannot provide exact or even highly accurate results for sliding window joins over data streams showing time varying rate of data arrivals. We provide an exact window join (EWJ) algorithm incorporating disk storage as an archive. Our algorithm spills window data onto the disk on a periodic basis, refines the output result by properly retrieving the disk resident data, and maximises output rate by employing techniques to manage the memory blocks. The problem of managing the window blocks in memory – similar in nature to the caching issue – captures both the temporal and frequency related properties of the stream arrivals. We provide experimental results demonstrating the performance and effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Intelligent Information and Database SystemsSame topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207