MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972354026 · doi:10.1109/icdew.2013.6547437

Client-centric OLAP on mobile devices

2013· article· en· W1972354026 on OpenAlexaff
Zheng Xu, Wo-Shun Luk, Stephen Petchulat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsSystems, Applications & Products in Data Processing (Canada)Simon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOnline analytical processingComputer scienceMobile deviceClient-sideVisualizationSoftwareDatabaseOperating systemClient–server modelData visualizationResource (disambiguation)ClientWorld Wide WebServerData warehouseComputer networkData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A client on a client-centric OLAP system is capable of performing OLAP operations on data downloaded from the OLAP server. A previous research study has shown that this concept can work very well for some common data visualization scenarios. As a proof-of-concept, a research prototype was built where the client was a web-browser on a desktop machine. In this research, our focus has shifted to mobile devices, such as a tablet, which is more resource-constrained. Our objective is to find out the pros and cons of a web-based client vis-à-vis an app-based client, i.e., one that runs on the native operating system. Two research prototypes have been built, one for each type of client, to run in a client-centric OLAP system. We compare their architectures, software implementation aspects and performance on `real life' data. We pay special attention on how software running on mobile devices handles unusually high volume of data. We also compare the performance of app-based clients running in a client-centric and a server-centric system respectively.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207