MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993188540 · doi:10.1142/s0218194007003446

XML SCHEMA MATCHING

2007· article· en· W1993188540 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeOpen Text (Canada)University of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSchema matchingDocument Structure DescriptionRELAX NGXML Schema EditorXML validationXML Schema (W3C)XMLStar schemaEfficient XML InterchangeInformation retrievalXML databaseMatching (statistics)Schema (genetic algorithms)Data miningStreaming XMLDatabaseData integrationDocument type definitionMathematicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

XML Schema matching problem can be formulated as follows: given two XML Schemas, find the best mapping between the elements and attributes of the schemas, and the overall similarity between them. XML Schema matching is an important problem in data integration, schema evolution, and software reuse. This paper describes a matching system that can find accurate matches and scales to large XML Schemas with hundreds of nodes. In our system, XML Schemas are modeled as labeled and unordered trees, and the schema matching problem is turned into a tree matching problem. We proposed Approximate Common Structures in trees, and developed a tree matching algorithm based on this concept. Compared with the traditional tree edit-distance algorithm and other schema matching systems, our algorithm is faster and more suitable for large XML Schema matching.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.234 · 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