MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116138848 · doi:10.1109/cit.2010.130

Two Novel Semantics of Top-k Queries Processing in Uncertain Database

2010· article· en· W2116138848 on OpenAlexaff
Dexi Liu, Changxuan Wan, Naixue Xiong, Laurence T. Yang, Lei Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTupleSemantics (computer science)Computer scienceRanking (information retrieval)DatabaseRank (graph theory)Information retrievalTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Top-k query is a powerful technique in uncertain databases because of the existence of exponential possible worlds, and it is necessary to combine score and confidence of tuples to derive top k answers. Different semantics, the combination methods of score and confidence, lead to different results. U-kRanks and Global Top-k are two semantics of Top-k queries in uncertain database, which consider every alternative in x-tuple as single one and return the tuple which has the highest probability appearing at top k or a given rank. However, no matter which alternative (tuple) of an x-tuple appears in a possible world, it undoubtedly believes that this x-tuple appears in the same possible world accordingly. Thus, instead of ranking every individual tuple, we define two novel Top-k queries semantics in uncertain database, Uncertain x-kRanks queries (U-x-kRanks) and Global x-Top-k queries (G-x-Top-k), which return k entities according to the score and the confidence of alternatives in x-tuple, respectively. In order to reduce the search space, we present an efficient algorithm to process U-x-kRanks queries and G-x-Top-k queries. Comprehensive experiments on different data sets demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed solutions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.013
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207