MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117212502 · doi:10.1109/ideas.2007.10

Adaptive Execution of Stream Window Joins in a Limited Memory Environment

2007· article· en· W2117212502 on OpenAlexaff
Fatima Farag, Moustafa A. Hammad

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Database Engineering and Applications Symposium · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceJoinsData stream miningSliding window protocolData streamWindow (computing)Distributed computingParallel computingVolume (thermodynamics)Real-time computingAlgorithmData miningOperating systemProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A sliding window join (SWJoin) is becoming an integral operation in every stream data management system. In some streaming applications the increasing volume of streamed data as well as the multiplicity of concurrent queries requires an adaptive SWJoin algorithm for the limited memory resources. Previous algorithms of SWJoin address the memory limitation by exploiting external-memory resources while imposing timely ordered arrival of input data streams. In this paper we propose an external-memory sliding-window join algorithm (EM-SWJoin) that addresses general arrival patterns of input streams and exploits disk- based data structures. The algorithm runs in two phases. The first phase partially joins the arriving data of one stream with the memory-resident data of the other streams. The second phase completes the processing of the partially joined data by considering the disk-resident data from the corresponding streams. Swapping from one phase to the other improves the response time of the input data. A comparative study between EM-SWJoin and other related algorithms illustrates the superiority of the proposed algorithm.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Database Engineering and Applications SymposiumSame topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207