MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408609218

Dynamic View Selection for OLAP.

2010· article· en· W2408609218 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Lawrence, Andrew Rau‐Chaplin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterialized viewOnline analytical processingData warehouseComputer scienceAggregate (composite)Selection (genetic algorithm)Task (project management)Set (abstract data type)Information retrievalOrder (exchange)Data miningDatabaseViewArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

www.cgmLab.org Abstract. Due to the increasing size of data warehouses it is often in-feasible to materialize all possible aggregate views for Online Analytical Processing. View selection, the task of selecting a subset of views to ma-terialize based on knowledge of the incoming queries and updates, is an important and challenging problem. In this paper we explore Dynamic View Selection in which the distribution of queries changes over time, and a subset of a materialized view set is updated to better serve the incoming queries. 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207