MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963689351

Characterizing and Computing Causes for Query Answers in Databases from Database Repairs and Repair Programs

2017· article· en· W2963689351 on OpenAlexaff
Leopoldo Bertossi

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTupleComputer scienceDatabaseSet (abstract data type)Null (SQL)ViewSemantics (computer science)Query languageInformation retrievalDatabase theoryRelational databaseDatabase designProgramming languageMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A correspondence between database tuples as causes for query answers in databases and tuple-based repairs of inconsistent databases with respect to denial constraints has already been established. In this work, answer-set programs that specify repairs of databases are used as a basis for solving computational and reasoning problems about causes. Here, causes are also introduced at the attribute level by appealing to a both null-based and attribute-based repair semantics. The corresponding repair programs are presented, and they are used as a basis for computation and reasoning about attribute-level causes.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.122 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207