MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122792880 · doi:10.1109/icas.2006.64

Workload Models for Autonomic Database Management Systems

2006· article· en· W2122792880 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Science Council
KeywordsWorkloadComputer scienceDatabaseKey (lock)Autonomic computingComputer securityCloud computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomic computing is a promising approach to the problem of effectively managing large complex software systems such as database management systems (DBMSs). In order to be self-managing, an autonomic DBMS (ADBMS) must understand key aspects of its workload, including composition, frequency patterns, intensity and resource requirements. It must therefore use and maintain different characterizations, or models, of the workload to support its various kinds of decision-making. Our research into various aspects of ADBMSs has led us to develop a number of different workload models. In this paper, we examine the importance of workload models to ADBMSs. We discuss the types of workload models needed by ADBMSs and describe examples from our research. We then outline the requirements for an infrastructure to develop and maintain the workload models needed by an ADBMS.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.213 · 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