MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100622378 · doi:10.1109/icde.2005.249

Novel Approach for Reengineering Relational Databases into XML

2005· article· en· W2100622378 on OpenAlexaff
Chunyan Wang, Anthony Lo, Reda Alhajj, Ken Barker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRelational databaseXML Schema EditorXML databaseDocument Structure DescriptionXMLXML Schema (W3C)DatabaseXML validationDatabase modelSchema (genetic algorithms)Semi-structured modelEntity–relationship modelEfficient XML InterchangeBusiness process reengineeringDatabase schemaStreaming XMLInformation retrievalDatabase designWorld Wide WebXML EncryptionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present COCALEREX (converting relational to XML) which can address both catalog-based and legacy relational databases. It handles the latter category by first applying the reverse engineering approach described in [2] to extract the ER (Extended Entity Relationship) model from legacy relational databases. This reverse engineering approach is emplyed also not to extract from catalog-based databases meta-data not available in the catalog. Then, COCALEREX converts the ER to XML schema. Deriving the ER model empowers the proposed approach to smoothly consider many-to-many and nary relationships during the mapping into XML schema. COCALEREX provides a user-friendly interface that displays the result of each phase of the conversion process. Experimental results are encouraging, demonstrating the applicability and effectiveness of the proposed approach.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207