MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560100475 · doi:10.1017/s0269888916000217

Storing massive Resource Description Framework (RDF) data: a survey

2016· article· en· W2560100475 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Knowledge Engineering Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRDFRDF/XMLComputer scienceRDF SchemaSimple Knowledge Organization SystemCwmSPARQLLinked dataRDF query languageNoSQLDatabaseSemantic WebInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebScalabilityWeb search query

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a flexible model for representing information about resources on the Web. As a W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) Recommendation, RDF has rapidly gained popularity. With the widespread acceptance of RDF on the Web and in the enterprise, a huge amount of RDF data is being proliferated and becoming available. Efficient and scalable management of RDF data is therefore of increasing importance. RDF data management has attracted attention in the database and Semantic Web communities. Much work has been devoted to proposing different solutions to store RDF data efficiently. This paper focusses on using relational databases and NoSQL (for ‘not only SQL (Structured Query Language)’) databases to store massive RDF data. A full up-to-date overview of the current state of the art in RDF data storage is provided in the paper.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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 science0.0020.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.208 · 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