MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141686985 · doi:10.1109/wcre.2001.957840

Reengineering relational databases to object-oriented: constructing the class hierarchy and migrating the data

2002· article· en· W2141686985 on OpenAlexaff
Reda Alhajj, Faruk Polat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDatabaseDatabase designDatabase modelViewClass hierarchyRelational databaseDatabase schemaSemi-structured modelDatabase theoryDatabase testingGraph databaseDatabase tuningIntelligent databaseData modelingPhysical data modelDatabase applicationGraphObject-oriented programmingTheoretical computer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The object-oriented data model is predicted to be the heart of the next generation of database systems. Users want to move from old legacy databases into applying this new technology that provides extensibility and flexibility in maintenance. However, a major limitation on the wide acceptance of object-oriented databases is the amount of time and money invested on existing database applications, which are based on conventional legacy systems. Users do not want to loose the huge amounts of data present in conventional databases. This paper presents a novel approach to transform a given conventional database into an object-oriented database. It is assumed that the necessary characteristics of the conventional database to be re-engineered are known and available. The source of these characteristics might be the data dictionary and/or an expert in the given conventional database. We implemented a system that builds an understanding of a given conventional database by taking these characteristics as input and produces the corresponding object-oriented database as output. The system derives a graph that summarizes the conceptual model. Links in the graph are classified into inheritance links and aggregation links. This classification leads to the class hierarchy. Finally, we handle the migration of data from the conventional database to the constructed object-oriented database.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207