Leveraging distributed big data storage support in CLAaaS for WINGS workflow management system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cloud-based Analytics-as-a-Service (CLAaaS) was developed by Zulkernine et al. with a goal to simplifying big data analytics users. It provides software-as-a-service access to a variety of back end analytics tools and data stores. One of the tools is the Workflow Instance Generation and Selection (WINGS). WINGS allows users to reuse predefined workflows and their components containing semantic meta-data to define new workflows; late binding of the workflows to data at the time of execution to enable the use of most recent data, and definition of domain specific software code as custom analytic components in workflows. How ever, the data used in WINGS for the workflows are mostly flat files that are stored on the WINGS server or shared directories. The goal of this project is to add support for big data storage systems to WINGS and validate the extensions using multiple data analytic workflows of different complexities with data residing in a variety of back end data sources. The extension allows the CLAaaS users to create, validate and execute analytic workflows in a distributed environment and use data from multiple big data storage systems. We validate our work using four big data storage systems in WINGS workflows namely, Apache HBase, MongoDB, MySQL with a front-end interface.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".