MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2260484439 · doi:10.14778/2824032.2824036

SEMA-JOIN

2015· article· en· W2260484439 on OpenAlexaff
Yeye He, Kris Ganjam, Xu Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceJoinsJoin (topology)Hash joinTable (database)Theoretical computer scienceData miningDatabaseProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Join is a powerful operator that combines records from two or more tables, which is of fundamental importance in the field of relational database. However, traditional join processing mostly relies on string equality comparisons. Given the growing demand for ad-hoc data analysis, we have seen an increasing number of scenarios where the desired join relationship is not equi-join. For example, in a spreadsheet environment, a user may want to join one table with a subject column country-name, with another table with a subject column country-code. Traditional equi-join cannot handle such joins automatically, and the user typically has to manually find an intermediate mapping table in order to perform the desired join. We develop a SEMA-JOIN approach that is a first step toward allowing users to perform semantic join automatically, with a click of the button. Our main idea is to utilize a data-driven method that leverages a big table corpus with over 100 million tables to determine statistical correlation between cell values at both row-level and column-level. We use the intuition that the correct join mapping is the one that maximizes aggregate pairwise correlation, to formulate the join prediction problem as an optimization problem. We develop a linear program relaxation and a rounding argument to obtain a 2-approximation algorithm in polynomial time. Our evaluation using both public tables from the Web and proprietary Enterprise tables from a large company shows that the proposed approach can perform automatic semantic joins with high precision for a variety of common join scenarios.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.008

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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.108 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207