MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144365306 · doi:10.1142/s0218488505003643

GLOBAL PROPAGATION IN BAYESIAN NETWORKS VS SEMIJOIN PROGRAMS IN RELATIONAL DATABASES

2005· article· en· W2144365306 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

VenueInternational Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian networkProbabilistic logicRelational databaseComputer scienceBayesian probabilityProbabilistic databaseBayesian statisticsStatistical relational learningLinkage (software)Artificial intelligenceDatabaseBayesian inferenceDatabase theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bayesian networks have been well established as an effective framework for uncertainty management using probability. Various methods for probabilistic reasoning in Bayesian networks have been developed and matured. Recently, research has shown that there exists an intriguing relationship between Bayesian networks and relational databases. Adding to that intriguing relationship, in this paper, we reveal that the global propagation method for probabilistic reasoning in Bayesian networks has a close tie with the well known semijoin programs for query answering in relational databases. This linkage between these two apparently different but closely related knowledge representations suggests that well developed techniques for query answering in relational databases could be applied to probabilistic reasoning in Bayesian networks for large and complex domains.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.250 · 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