MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003540235

Proceedings of the twenty-seventh ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems

2008· article· en· W2003540235 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Phokion G. Kolaitis, Maurizio Lenzerini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLibrary scienceOperations researchDatabaseMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This volume contains the proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS 2008), held in Vancouver, Canada, on June 9-11, 2008, in conjunction with the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. The proceedings include one paper based on the keynote address by Peter Buneman, two papers based on the invited tutorials by Mikolaj Bojanczyk and Wenfei Fan, and 28 contributed papers that were selected by the Program Committee from 159 submissions. Most of these papers are preliminary reports on work in progress. While they have been read by program committee members, they have not been formally refereed. Many of them will probably appear in more polished and detailed form in scientific journals. The program committee selected the paper Estimating PageRank on Graph Streams by Atish Das Sarma, Sreenivas Gollapudi and Rina Panigrahy for the PODS 2008 Best Paper Award, and the paper Evaluating Rank Joins with Optimal Cost by Karl Schnaitter and Neoklis Polyzotis for the PODS 2008 Best Newcomer Award. Warmest congratulations to the authors of these papers. I thank all authors who submitted papers to the symposium, and the members of the program committee for the enormous amount of work they have done. The program committee did not meet in person, but carried out extensive discussions during the electronic PC meeting.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0030.002
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207