MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121601564 · doi:10.1145/2247596.2247644

Repair-oriented relational schemas for multidimensional databases

2012· article· en· W2121601564 on OpenAlexaff
Mahkameh Yaghmaie, Leopoldo Bertossi, Sina Ariyan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelational databaseComputer scienceSchema (genetic algorithms)Relational modelDatabaseDimension (graph theory)Relational calculusInformation schemaTheoretical computer scienceData miningDatabase modelSemi-structured modelInformation retrievalMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summarizability in a multidimensional (MD) database refers to the correct reusability of pre-computed aggregate queries (or views) when computing higher-level aggregations or roll-ups. A dimension instance has this property if and only if it is strict and homogeneous. A dimension instance may fail to satisfy either of these two semantics conditions, and has to be repaired, restoring strictness and homogeneity. In this work, we take a relational approach to the problem of repairing dimension instances. A dimension repair is obtained by translating the dimension instance into a relational instance, repairing the latter using established techniques in the relational framework, and properly inverting the process. We show that the common relational star and snowflake schemas for MD databases are not the best choice for this process. Actually, for this purpose, we propose and formalize the path relational schema, which becomes the basis for obtaining dimensional repairs. The path schema turns out to have useful properties in general, as a basis for a relational representation and implementation of MD databases and data warehouses. It is also particularly suitable for restoring MD summarizability through relational repairs. We compare the dimension repairs so obtained with existing repair approaches for MD databases.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.007
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Theoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207