MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108523040 · doi:10.1109/icpads.2000.857695

Efficient query result retrieval over the Web

2002· article· en· W2108523040 on OpenAlexaff
Edward P. F. Chan, Kanayo Ueda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWeb query classificationWeb search queryDatabaseInterface (matter)Web serverQuery optimizationSet (abstract data type)Application serverInformation retrievalOperating systemThe InternetSearch engineProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consider a geographic information system (GIS) which is set up as a Web server that allows users to query the database with a Web browser. As the query result may be huge and the network delay could be significant, we investigate the fundamental problem of how to deliver the query result efficiently over the network . In a conventional client-server database system, the commonly used application programming interface (API) is the so-called iterator-based interface in which a client queries the server with an ISQL statement and the result, which is called a result or active set, is generated. To retrieve the query result, multiple calls are made to the server and objects in the result set are retrieved sequentially. To enhance system performance, objects in a result set can also be retrieved in bulk by storing them in an array. In the Web environment, a database server is commonly implemented with a distributed object technology such as Java or CORBA. As network delay could be significant and the client memory spaces are limited and varying, neither multiple calls nor bulk-retrieval is a viable solution to this problem. We propose a technique by caching and piping the result set through a socket connection without forfeiting the iterator-based interface. We show that the proposed method is superior in delivering a query result in a LAN and in the Web environment. We then investigate how to retrieve and display geometric data in a map efficiently in a network environment.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207