Making an RDBMS data scientist friendly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are currently witnessing the rapid evolution and adoption of various data science frameworks that function external to the database. Any support from conventional RDBMS implementations for data science applications has been limited to procedural paradigms such as user-defined functions (UDFs) that lack exploratory programming support. Therefore, the current status quo is that during the exploratory phase, data scientists usually use the database system as the "data storage" layer of the data science framework, whereby the majority of computation and analysis is performed outside the database, e.g., at the client node. We demonstrate AIDA, an in-database framework for data scientists. AIDA allows users to write interactive Python code using a development environment such as a Jupyter notebook. The actual execution itself takes place inside the database (near-data), where a server component of AIDA, that resides inside the embedded Python interpreter of the RDBMS, manages the data sets and computations. The demonstration will also show the visualization capabilities of AIDA where the progress of computation can be observed through live updates. Our evaluations show that AIDA performs several times faster compared to contemporary external data science frameworks, but is much easier to use for exploratory development compared to database UDFs.
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 | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
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".