MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907216425 · doi:10.1145/3282834.3282841

A Performance Study of Big Spatial Data Systems

2018· article· en· W2907216425 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataComputer scienceScalabilitySPARK (programming language)Spatial analysisBenchmark (surveying)Field (mathematics)Variety (cybernetics)Volume (thermodynamics)Computer data storageData scienceDatabaseData miningArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the accelerated growth in spatial data volume, being generated from a wide variety of sources, the need for efficient storage, retrieval, processing and analyzing of spatial data is ever more important. Hence, spatial data processing system has become an important field of research. In recent times a number of Big Spatial Data systems have been proposed by researchers around the world. These systems can be roughly categorized into Apache Hadoop-based and in-memory systems based on Apache Spark. The available features supported by these systems vary widely. However, there has not been any comprehensive evaluation study of these systems in terms of performance, scalability and functionality. To address this need, we propose a benchmark to evaluate Big Spatial Data systems.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207