Bibliographic record
Abstract
Web data management has been a topic of interest for many years during which a number of different modelling approaches have been tried. The latest in this approaches is to use RDF (Resource Description Framework), which seems to provide real opportunity for querying at least some of the web data systematically. RDF has been proposed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) for modeling Web objects as part of developing the "semantic web". W3C has also proposed SPARQL as the query language for accessing RDF data repositories. The publication of Linked Open Data (LOD) on the Web has gained tremendous momentum over the last number of years, and this provides a new opportunity to accomplish web data integration. A number of approaches have been proposed for running SPARQL queries over RDF-encoded Web data: data warehousing, SPARQL federation, and live linked query execution. In this talk, I will review these approaches with particular emphasis on some of our research within the context of gStore project (joint project with Prof. Lei Zou of Peking University and Prof. Lei Chen of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology), chameleon-db project (joint work with Günes Aluç, Dr. Olaf Hartig, and Prof. Khuzaima Daudjee of University of Waterloo), and live linked query execution (joint work with Dr. Olaf Hartig). Much of the content of this presentation has been published in [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 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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".