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
We study selectivity estimation techniques for set similarity queries. A wide variety of similarity measures for sets have been proposed in the past. In this work we concentrate on the class of weighted similarity measures (e.g., TF/IDF and BM25 cosine similarity and variants) and design selectivity estimators based on a priori constructed samples. First, we study the pitfalls associated with straightforward applications of random sampling, and argue that care needs to be taken in how the samples are constructed; uniform random sampling yields very low accuracy, while query sensitive realtime sampling is more expensive than exact solutions (both in CPU and I/O cost). We show how to build robust samples a priori, based on existing synopses for distinct value estimation. We prove the accuracy of our technique theoretically, and verify its performance experimentally. Our algorithm is orders of magnitude faster than exact solutions and has very small space overhead.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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