An Envisioned Approach for Modeling and Supporting User-Centric Query Activities on Data Warehouses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this vision paper, the authors discuss models and techniques for integrating, processing and querying data, information and knowledge within data warehouses in a user-centric manner. The user-centric emphasis allows us to achieve a number of clear advantages with respect to classical data warehouse architectures, whose most relevant ones are the following: (i) a unified and meaningful representation of multidimensional data and knowledge patterns throughout the data warehouse layers (i.e., loading, storage, metadata, etc); (ii) advanced query mechanisms and guidance that are capable of extracting targeted information and knowledge by means of innovative information retrieval and data mining techniques. Following this main framework, the authors first outline the importance of knowledge representation and management in data warehouses, where knowledge is expressed by existing ontology or patterns discovered from data. Then, the authors propose a user-centric architecture for OLAP query processing, which is the typical applicative interface to data warehouse systems. Finally, the authors propose insights towards cooperative query answering that make use of knowledge management principles and exploit the peculiarities of data warehouses (e.g., multidimensionality, multi-resolution, and so forth).
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".