MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171361281 · doi:10.1109/cmpsac.1979.762509

An algorithm for tree-query membership of a distributed query

2005· article· en· W2171361281 on OpenAlexaff
C. Yu, Meral Özsoyoğlu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoinsComputer scienceTransitive closureQuery optimizationSpatial queryAlgorithmJoin (topology)Query languageSargableTheoretical computer scienceGraphData miningMathematicsWeb search querySearch engineDiscrete mathematicsInformation retrievalCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim is to process distributed queries ef ficiently. The cost of communications between sites is dominant in processing such queries. It is assumed that the amount of data transferred determines the transmission cost to a large extent. Thus, it is desirable to minimize the amount of transmitted data. Bernstein-and Chiu [2] classified queries into two types: tree and cyclic queries. They defined an operation called semi-join which requires minimal transfer of data between sites. Then they showed that tree queries can always be answered by semi-joins but cyclic queries may not. An algorithm to decide whether a query is cyclic or not was presented in their paper. Their algorithm works when the number of domains in common between any two relations is no more than one. The aim of this paper is to generalize their algorithm. Specifically, we present a conceptionally simple algorithm which decides the type of a query when the number of domains in common between two relations may exceed one. An implementation of the algorithm is outlined. The algorithm runs in 0(max(e,e')) time and O(e) space complexity where e and e' are the number of edges in the transitive closure of the join graph and the query graph respectively.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.007

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations114
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207