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
This paper presents a principled framework for efficient processing of ad-hoc top-k (ranking) aggregate queries, which provide the k groups with the highest aggregates as results. Essential support of such queries is lacking in current systems, which process the queries in a naïve materialize-group-sort scheme that can be prohibitively inefficient. Our framework is based on three fundamental principles. The Upper-Bound Principle dictates the requirements of early pruning, and the Group-Ranking and Tuple-Ranking Principles dictate group-ordering and tuple-ordering requirements. They together guide the query processor toward a provably optimal tuple schedule for aggregate query processing. We propose a new execution framework to apply the principles and requirements. We address the challenges in realizing the framework and implementing new query operators, enabling efficient group-aware and rank-aware query plans. The experimental study validates our framework by demonstrating orders of magnitude performance improvement in the new query plans, compared with the traditional plans.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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