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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Replication is a key mechanism to achieve scalability and fault-tolerance in databases. Its importance has recently been further increased because of the role it plays in achieving elasticity at the database layer. In database replication, the biggest challenge lies in the trade-off between performance and consistency. A decade ago, performance could only be achieved through lazy replication at the expense of transactional guarantees. The strong consistency of eager approaches came with a high cost in terms of reduced performance and limited scalability. Postgres-R combined results from distributed systems and databases to develop a replication solution that provided both scalability and strong consistency. The use of group communication primitives with strong ordering and delivery guarantees together with optimized transaction handling (tailored locking, transferring logs instead of re-executing updates, keeping the message overhead per transaction constant) were a drastic departure from the state-of-the-art at the time. Ten years later, these techniques are widely used in a variety of contexts but particularly in cloud computing scenarios. In this paper we review the original motivation for Postgres-R and discuss how the ideas behind the design have evolved over the years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it