MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2242648545

The Bionic DBMS is Coming, but What Will It Look Like?

2013· article· en· W2242648545 on OpenAlex
Ryan Johnson, Ippokratis Pandis

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

VenueInfoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDataflowSoftwareKey (lock)Cloud computingDatabase transactionCloud databaseDatabaseEmbedded systemCommodityOperating systemComputer hardware
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software has always ruled database engines, and commodity processors riding Moore’s Law doomed database machines of the 1980s from the start. However, today’s hardware land-scape is very different, and moving in directions that make database machines increasingly attractive. Stagnant clock speeds, looming dark silicon, availability of reconfigurable hardware, and the economic clout of cloud providers all align to make custom database hardware economically viable or even necessary. Dataflow workloads (business intelligence and streaming) already benefit from emerging hardware support. In this paper, we argue that control flow workloads—with their corresponding latencies—are another feasible target for hardware support. To make our point, we outline a transaction processing architecture that offloads much of its functionality to reconfigurable hardware. We predict a con-vergence to fully “bionic ” database engines that implement nearly all key functionality directly in hardware and relegate software to a largely managerial role. 1.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.228 · 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