Improving data quality: consistency and accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper revisits the analysis of annotation propagation from source databases to views defined in terms of conjunctive (SPJ) queries. Given a source database D, an SPJ query Q, the view Q(D) and a tuple ΔV in the view, the view (resp. source) side-effect problem is to find a minimal set ΔD of tuples such that the deletion of ΔD from D results in the deletion of ΔV from Q(D) while minimizing the side effects on the view (resp. the source). A third problem, referred to as the annotation placement problem, is to find a single base tuple ΔD such that annotation in a field of ΔD propagates to ΔV while minimizing the propagation to other fields in the view Q(D). These are important for data provenance and the management of view updates. However important, these problems are unfortunately NP-hard for most subclasses of SPJ views [5].To make the annotation propagation analysis feasible in practice, we propose a key preserving condition on SPJ views, which requires that the projection fields of an SPJ view Q retain a key of each base relation involved in Q. While this condition is less restrictive than other proposals [11, 14], it often simplifies the annotation propagation analysis. Indeed, for key-preserving SPJ views the annotation placement problem coincides with the view side-effect problem, and the view and source side-effect problems become tractable. In addition we generalize the setting of [5] by allowing ΔV to be a group of tuples to be deleted, and investigate the insertion of tuples to the view. We show that group updates make the analysis harder: these problems become NP-hard for several subclasses of SPJ views. We also show that for SPJ views the source and view side-effect problems are NP-hard for single-tuple insertion, but are tractable for some subclasses of SPJ for group insertions, in the presence or in the absence of the key preservation condition.
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 | 0.049 | 0.232 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".