MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991368089 · doi:10.1145/543613.543636

OLAP dimension constraints

2002· article· en· W1991368089 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Hurtado, Alberto O. Mendelzon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOnline analytical processingDimension (graph theory)HeuristicsComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceClass (philosophy)Intrinsic dimensionSet (abstract data type)Aggregate (composite)Space (punctuation)Curse of dimensionalityMathematicsData miningArtificial intelligenceData warehouseCombinatoricsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In multidimensional data models intended for online analytic processing (OLAP), data are viewed as points in a multidimensional space. Each dimension has structure, described by a directed graph of categories, a set of members for each category, and a child/parent relation between members. An important application of this structure is to use it to infer summarizability, that is, whether an aggregate view defined for some category can be correctly derived from a set of precomputed views defined for other categories. A dimension is called heterogeneous if two members in a given category are allowed to have ancestors in different categories. In previous work, we studied the problem of inferring summarizability in a particular class of heterogeneous dimensions. In this paper, we propose a class of integrity constraints and schemas that allow us to reason about summarizability in general heterogeneous dimensions. We introduce the notion of frozen dimensions, which are minimal homogeneous dimension instances representing the different structures that are implicitly combined in a heterogeneous dimension. Frozen dimensions provide the basis for efficiently testing implication of dimension constraints, and are useful aid to understanding heterogeneous dimensions. We give a sound and complete algorithm for solving the implication of dimension constraints, that uses heuristics based on the structure of the dimension and the constraints to speed up its execution. We study the intrinsic complexity of the implication problem, and the running time of our 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.012
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
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

Citations63
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207