MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791946429 · doi:10.1561/1900000055

Algorithmic Aspects of Parallel Data Processing

2018· article· en· W2791946429 on OpenAlexaff
Paraschos Koutris, Semih Salihoğlu, Dan Suciu

Bibliographic record

VenueFoundations and Trends in Databases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData processingMassively parallelSPARK (programming language)Parallel processingSortingJoinsData processing systemScope (computer science)ComputationParallel computingDistributed computingTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last decade or so we have witnessed a growing interest in processing large data sets on large distributed clusters. The idea was pioneered by the MapReduce framework, and has been widely adopted by several other systems, including PigLatin, Hive, Scope, U-SQL, Dremmel, Spark and Myria. A large part of the complex data analysis performed by these systems consists of a sequence of relatively simple query operations, such as joining two or more tables. This survey discusses recent algorithmic developments for distributed data processing. It uses a theoretical model of parallel processing called the Massively Parallel Computation (MPC) model, which is a simplification of the BSP model where the only cost is given by the amount of communication and the number of communication rounds. The survey studies several algorithms for multi-join queries, for sorting, and for matrix multiplication, and discusses their relationships and common techniques applied across the different data processing tasks.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoundations and Trends in DatabasesSame topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207