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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".