MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063278540 · doi:10.1145/2390045.2390054

Towards intensional answers to OLAP queries for analytical sessions

2012· preprint· en· W2063278540 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOnline analytical processingComputer scienceSession (web analytics)Information retrievalExtensional definitionQuery languageData cubeCube (algebra)DatabaseData miningData warehouseWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the problems in analyzing large multidimensional databases through OLAP sessions is that decision makers can be overwhelmed by the size of query answers, while they need a concise summary of data. Intensional query answering can help by providing a concise description of extensional answers (i.e., the sets of retrieved facts), generally relying on knowledge like integrity constraints, taxonomies, or patterns discovered from data. This paper proposes a framework for computing an intensional answer to an OLAP query by leveraging on the previous queries in the current session. Such intensional answer is concise and semantically rich, and allows the size of the extensional answers returned to be reduced, so as to achieve an effective trade-off between conciseness and informational content. After describing the general framework, we propose a specific instantiation that relies on previous contributions in cube modeling and intensional query answering.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207