MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122115541 · doi:10.1109/tkde.2003.1232279

Reasoning about uniqueness constraints in object relational databases

2003· article· en· W2122115541 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRelational databaseUniquenessGeneralizationFunctional dependencyTheoretical computer scienceRelational modelObject (grammar)Simple (philosophy)Relational calculusRepresentation (politics)Core (optical fiber)DatabaseArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uniqueness constraints such as keys and functional dependencies in the relational model are a core concept in information systems technology. We consider uniqueness constraints suitable for object relational data models and identify a boundary between tractable and intractable varieties. The subclass that is tractable is still a strict generalization of both keys and relational functional dependencies. We present an efficient decision procedure for the logical implication problem of this subclass. The problem itself is formulated as an implication problem for a simple dialect of description logic (DL). DLs are a family of languages for knowledge representation that have many applications in information systems technology and for which model building procedures have been developed that can decide implication problems for dialects that are very expressive. Our own procedure complements this approach and can be integrated with these earlier procedures. Finally, to motivate our results, we review some applications of our procedure in query optimization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.246 · 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