Discovering linkage points over web data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A basic step in integration is the identification of linkage points, i.e., finding attributes that are shared (or related) between data sources, and that can be used to match records or entities across sources. This is usually performed using a match operator, that associates attributes of one database to another. However, the massive growth in the amount and variety of unstructured and semi-structured data on the Web has created new challenges for this task. Such data sources often do not have a fixed pre-defined schema and contain large numbers of diverse attributes. Furthermore, the end goal is not schema alignment as these schemas may be too heterogeneous (and dynamic) to meaningfully align. Rather, the goal is to align any overlapping data shared by these sources. We will show that even attributes with different meanings (that would not qualify as schema matches) can sometimes be useful in aligning data. The solution we propose in this paper replaces the basic schema-matching step with a more complex instance-based schema analysis and linkage discovery. We present a framework consisting of a library of efficient lexical analyzers and similarity functions, and a set of search algorithms for effective and efficient identification of linkage points over Web data. We experimentally evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed algorithms in real-world integration scenarios in several domains.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".