MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967371416 · doi:10.1049/el.2019.1965

Optimal search algorithm in a big database using interpolation–extrapolation method

2019· article· en· W2967371416 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

VenueElectronics Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersUniversiti Malaysia Pahang
KeywordsExtrapolationInterpolation (computer graphics)Binary search algorithmComputer scienceSearch algorithmAlgorithmConvergence (economics)Data miningMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fast data search is an important element of big data in the modern era of internet of things, cloud computing, and social networks. Search using traditional binary‐search algorithm can be accelerated by employing an interpolation search technique when the data is regularly distributed. In this work, the interpolation search is investigated in which the search results provided unexpected sluggish progress during a search in a large database due to the irregular distribution of data. Irregular distribution of data does not allow the interpolation to make a good prediction about the location of the search item. To overcome this issue, an interpolation–extrapolation search (IES) method is proposed where the interpolation method is integrated with an extrapolation method that balances the lower and upper bounds of the search interval. The proposed method provides faster convergence property than the binary search and the interpolation method. Hence, the proposed IES method provides a faster search for items in a big database.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.294 · 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