MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893720506 · doi:10.5539/mas.v12n10p71

Automatic Recovery of Database Structure (ARDS)

2018· article· en· W2893720506 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Esra Alzaghoul, Hussam N. Fakhouri, Fawaz Al-Zaghoul

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDatabaseFeature (linguistics)Database testingSoftwareDatabase administratorReal-time databaseData miningDatabase designOperating systemView

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the evolutions of information technology which is a very fascinating feature is the application of the auto recovery. This feature enables an external system to automatically diagnose other systems, detects the error that causes the failure, then recovers and reconfigures the system. The concept of software and web auto recovery is widely used in much software such as windows operating system which restores and recovers tools.  Since the aim is to fast recover the application and keep it running and available as optimal as possible then it will be suitable to apply this capability to the database applications to fast recover from any unexpected change that may happen. This paper proposes an auto-recovery system that monitors, diagnoses, checks and heals database applications automatically and immediately with unnoticeable recovery time. The aim is to recover and to redo the changes that happened to the database by internal unauthorized user or external intrusion. To test the practical applicability of the proposed methodology, an application has been developed to demonstrate the methodology and apply it for real time database applications. The results of experiments performed on different scenarios demonstrated the ability of the proposed framework to recover database applications.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicSoftware System Performance and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207