Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces a class of conditional inclusion dependencies (CINDs), which extends traditional inclusion dependencies (INDs) by enforcing bindings of semantically related data values. We show that CINDs are useful not only in data cleaning, but are also in contextual schema matching [7]. To make effective use of CINDs in practice, it is often necessary to reason about them. The most important static analysis issue concerns consistency, to determine<br/>whether or not a given set of CINDs has conflicts. Another issue concerns implication, i.e., deciding whether a set of CINDs entails another CIND. We give a full treatment of the static analyses of CINDs, and show that CINDs retain most nice properties of traditional INDs: (a) CINDs are always consistent; (b) CINDs are finitely axiomatizable, i.e., there exists a sound and complete inference system for implication of CINDs; and (c) the implication problem for CINDs has the same complexity as its traditional counterpart, namely, PSPACE-complete, in the absence of attributes with a finite domain; but it is EXPTIME-complete in the general setting. In addition, we investigate the interaction between CINDs and conditional functional dependencies (CFDs), an extension of functional dependencies proposed in [9]. We show that the consistency problem for the combination of CINDs and CFDs becomes undecidable. In light<br/>of the undecidability, we provide heuristic algorithms for the consistency<br/>analysis of CFDs and CINDs, and experimentally verify the effectiveness and efficiency of our algorithms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".