MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109406937 · doi:10.1109/ideas.2004.42

Interoperable server-based cache consistency algorithm

2004· article· en· W2109406937 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Bodorik, Dawn Jutla, Yueping Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Database Engineering and Applications Symposium · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAlgorithmCacheConcurrency controlCommitCallbackOperating systemTransactional memoryFalse sharingConsistency (knowledge bases)Client-sideCache algorithmsDatabase transactionDistributed computingDatabaseComputer networkCPU cache

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous caching algorithms have been investigated for the client-server object database management systems. The algorithms not only ensure cache consistency by preventing applications' access to stale data, but they also support transactional properties. Caching algorithms have been classified in a number of ways - one classification is into avoidance and detection categories, depending on whether access to the stale data is avoided, usually by locking, or permitted and then any conflict detected at commit time. Detection-based algorithms have better performance but can lead to high abort rate that is unacceptable for interactive applications. It is for this reason that avoidance-based algorithms are usually adopted in practice. This work describes a server-based interoperable transactional caching algorithm that concurrently supports the leading avoidance-based (adaptive callback locking (ACBL)) and detection-based (adaptive optimistic concurrency control (AOCC)) algorithms. At a client either the avoidance or the detection caching algorithm is used without any changes. It is the server-side caching algorithm that concurrently supports both avoidance and detection client-side caching.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Database Engineering and Applications SymposiumSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207