MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009688537 · doi:10.1145/1391729.1391730

A survey of top- <i>k</i> query processing techniques in relational database systems

2008· review· en· W2009688537 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

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRelational databaseDatabaseInformation retrievalDimension (graph theory)XML databaseXMLQuery optimizationQuery languageSargableDomain (mathematical analysis)ViewDatabase designWeb search queryWorld Wide WebSearch engine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient processing of top- k queries is a crucial requirement in many interactive environments that involve massive amounts of data. In particular, efficient top- k processing in domains such as the Web, multimedia search, and distributed systems has shown a great impact on performance. In this survey, we describe and classify top- k processing techniques in relational databases. We discuss different design dimensions in the current techniques including query models, data access methods, implementation levels, data and query certainty, and supported scoring functions. We show the implications of each dimension on the design of the underlying techniques. We also discuss top- k queries in XML domain, and show their connections to relational approaches.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.229 · 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