Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Representing open datasets with the RDF model is becoming increasingly popular. An important aspect of this data model is that it can utilize the methods of computing cryptographic hashes to verify the integrity of RDF graphs. In this paper, we first develop a number of metrics to compare the state-of-the-art integrity proof methods and then present two new approaches to generate an integrity proof of RDF datasets: (i) semantic-based and (ii) structurebased. The semantic-based approach leverages timestamps (or other inherent notions of ordering) as an indexing key to construct a sorted Merkle tree variation, where timestamps are semantically extractable from the dataset. The structure-based approach utilizes the redundant structure of large RDF datasets to compress the dataset statements prior to generating a variation of a Merkle tree. We provide a theoretical analysis and an experimental evaluation of our two proposed methods. Compared to the Merkle and sorted Merkle tree, the semantic-based approach achieves faster querying performance for large datasets. The structure-based approach is well suited when RDF datasets contain large amounts of semantic redundancies. We also evaluate our methods’ resistance to adversarial threats. </p>
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 | 0.012 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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".