DrawCAD: using deductive object‐relational databases in CAD
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
Abstract Computer‐aided design (CAD) involves the use of computers in the various stages of engineering design. CAD has large volumes of data with complex structures that need to be stored and managed effectively and properly. Database systems provide general purpose programs that can be used to access and manipulate large amounts of data stored in the database. They also provide an independence between the program accessing data and the database. It is therefore important to use database systems to store CAD data in the most efficient and effective manner for easy retrieval and better management. Graphical objects can be created, in CAD, by reusing previously created objects. The data of these objects have references to the other objects they contain. Deductive object‐relational databases not only provide direct support for the effective storage and efficient access to large amounts of data with complex structures on disk, but also perform the inferences and computations to obtain the complete data of graphical objects that reuse other objects. They should be able to play a major role in CAD systems. This is the idea behind the development of the DrawCAD system. DrawCAD is a CAD system built on top of the Relationlog object‐relational deductive database system. It facilitates the creation of graphical objects by reusing previously created objects. The DrawCAD system illustrates how CAD systems can be developed, using database systems to store and manage data and also perform the inferences and computations that are normally performed by the application program. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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