MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049257988 · doi:10.1145/2389686.2389693

Exploring and analyzing documents with OLAP

2012· article· en· W2049257988 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsOnline analytical processingComputer scienceCluster (spacecraft)Information retrievalCentroidData scienceData miningWorld Wide WebData warehouseArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When faced with a document collection of substantial size, it is difficult for users to explore and analyze the information contained in it. Tagging has been used to improve the organization of documents in a collection, but it has various limitations. We propose to improve the analysis and exploration of tagged document collections by organizing the documents into clusters and allowing users to perform online analytical processing on the clusters. However, supporting OLAP on clusters of documents poses various challenges that need to be addressed. These challenges include providing efficient representations for cluster centroids and document positions inside the clusters, dealing with overlapping clusters, efficient and accurate aggregation of clusters, providing functionality for helping users find representative documents for a cluster, and determining the strength of relationship between clusters.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

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 communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207