MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985795626 · doi:10.1145/371920.371979

A unified constraint model for XML

2001· article· en· W1985795626 on OpenAlexaff
Wenfei Fan, Gabriel M. Kuper, Jérǒme Simèon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsBell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData integrityXMLConsistency (knowledge bases)XML Schema (W3C)Programming languageSchema (genetic algorithms)XML validationConstraint (computer-aided design)Document Structure DescriptionRELAX NGXML Schema EditorTheoretical computer scienceDatabaseInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceXML EncryptionWorld Wide WebMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrity constraints are an essential part of modern schema denition languages. They are useful for semantic specication, update consistency control, query optimization, information preservation, etc. In this paper, we propose UCM, a model of integrity constraints for XML that is both simple and expressive. Because it relies on a single notion of keys and foreign keys, the UCM model is easy to use and makes formal reasoning possible. Becauseitreliesonapowerful type system, the UCM model is expressive, capturing in a single framework the constraints found in relational databases, objectoriented schemas and XML DTDs. We study the problem of consistency of UCM constraints, the interaction between constraints and subtyping, and algorithms for implementing these constraints. Keywords XML, XML Schema, Integrity Constraints, Keys, Object Identity, Subtyping, Constraint Reasoning 1.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations23
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207