Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, the process of synchronizing a decision support system with data from operational systems has been referred to as Extract, Transform, Load (ETL) and the tools supporting such process have been referred to as ETL tools. Recently, ETL was replaced by the more comprehensive acronym, data integration (DI). DI describes the process of extracting and combining data from a variety of data source formats, transforming that data into a unified data model representation and loading it into a data store. This is done in the context of a variety of scenarios, such as data acquisition for business intelligence, analytics and data warehousing, but also synchronization of data between operational applications, data migrations and conversions, master data management, enterprise data sharing and delivery of data services in a service-oriented architecture context, amongst others. With these scenarios relying on up-to-date information it is critical to implement a highly performing, scalable and easy to maintain data integration system. This is especially important as the complexity, variety and volume of data is constantly increasing and performance of data integration systems is becoming very critical. Despite the significance of having a highly performing DI system, there has been no industry standard for measuring and comparing their performance. The TPC, acknowledging this void, has released TPC-DI, an innovative benchmark for data integration. This paper motivates the reasons behind its development, describes its main characteristics including workload, run rules, metric, and explains key decisions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.125 | 0.116 |
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".