MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The ATLAS TAGS database distribution and management – Operational challenges of a multi-terabyte distributed database

2010· article· en· W2128319345 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

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDatabaseComputer scienceMetadataUploadTerabyteRelational databaseEvent (particle physics)Volume (thermodynamics)Data administrationMetadata managementDatabase catalogData managementDatabase testingResource (disambiguation)Database designViewDatabase schemaDatabase modelWorld Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The TAG files store summary event quantities that allow a quick selection of interesting events. This data will be produced at a nominal rate of 200 Hz, and is uploaded into a relational database for access from websites and other tools. The estimated database volume is 6TB per year, making it the largest application running on the ATLAS relational databases, at CERN and at other voluntary sites. The sheer volume and high rate of production makes this application a challenge to data and resource management, in many aspects. This paper will focus on the operational challenges of this system. These include: uploading the data from files to the CERN's and remote sites' databases; distributing the TAG metadata that is essential to guide the user through event selection; controlling resource usage of the database, from the user query load to the strategy of cleaning and archiving of old TAG data. © 2010 IOP Publishing Ltd.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.233 · 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