MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142595897 · doi:10.1109/tkde.2006.146

On the Signature Tree Construction and Analysis

2006· article· en· W2142595897 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSignature (topology)Tree (set theory)Set (abstract data type)Digital signatureData structureData miningFile formatInformation retrievalTheoretical computer scienceDatabaseProgramming languageHash functionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advanced database application areas, such as computer aided design, office automation, digital libraries, data-mining, as well as hypertext and multimedia systems, need to handle complex data structures with set-valued attributes, which can be represented as bit strings, called signatures. A set of signatures can be stored in a file, called a signature file. In this paper, we propose a new method to organize a signature file into a tree structure, called a signature tree, to speed up the signature file scanning and query evaluation. In addition, the average time complexity of searching a signature tree is analyzed and how to maintain a signature tree on disk is discussed. We also conducted experiments, which show that the approach of signature trees provides a promising index structure

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 score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.207 · 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