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

Algorithmic Aspects of Parallel Data Processing

2018· article· en· W2791946429 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

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.090
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