MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800277550 · doi:10.1145/3158661

A Survey on NoSQL Stores

2018· review· en· W2800277550 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsNoSQLComputer scienceConsistency (knowledge bases)ImplementationDatabaseBig dataRelational databaseData scienceScalabilityData miningSoftware engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent demands for storing and querying big data have revealed various shortcomings of traditional relational database systems. This, in turn, has led to the emergence of a new kind of complementary nonrelational data store, named as NoSQL. This survey mainly aims at elucidating the design decisions of NoSQL stores with regard to the four nonorthogonal design principles of distributed database systems: data model, consistency model, data partitioning, and the CAP theorem. For each principle, its available strategies and corresponding features, strengths, and drawbacks are explained. Furthermore, various implementations of each strategy are exemplified and crystallized through a collection of representative academic and industrial NoSQL technologies. Finally, we disclose some existing challenges in developing effective NoSQL stores, which need attention of the research community, application designers, and architects.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0080.006
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.242 · 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