Muse: Mapping Understanding and deSign by Example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fundamental problem in information integration is that of designing the relationships, called schema mappings, between two schemas. The specification of a semantically correct schema mapping is typically a complex task. Automated tools can suggest potential mappings, but few tools are available for helping a designer understand mappings and design alternative mappings. We describe Muse, a mapping design wizard that uses data examples to assist designers in understanding and refining a schema mapping towards the desired specification. We present novel algorithms behind Muse and show how Muse systematically guides the designer on two important components of a mapping design: the specification of the desired grouping semantics for sets of data and the choice among alternative interpretations for semantically ambiguous mappings. In every component, Muse infers the desired semantics based on the designer's actions on a short sequence of small examples. Whenever possible, Muse draws examples from a familiar database, thus facilitating the design process even further. We report our experience with Muse on some publicly available schemas.
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 | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".