MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407013441 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1405.4228

Unifying Causality, Diagnosis, Repairs and View-Updates in Databases

2014· preprint· en· W2407013441 on OpenAlexaff
Leopoldo Bertossi, Babak Salimi

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2014
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCausality (physics)Computer scienceDatabaseData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work we establish and point out connections between the notion of query-answer causality in databases and database repairs, model-based diagnosis in its consistency-based and abductive versions, and database updates through views. The mutual relationships among these areas of data management and knowledge representation shed light on each of them and help to share notions and results they have in common. In one way or another, these are all approaches to uncertainty management, which becomes even more relevant in the context of big data that have to be made sense of.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.015
Scholarly communication0.0090.032
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.125 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207