MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970992672 · doi:10.14778/3352063.3352116

Data lake management

2019· article· en· W2970992672 on OpenAlexaff
Fatemeh Nargesian, Erkang Zhu, Renée J. Miller, Ken Q. Pu, Patricia C. Arocena

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsTD Bank GroupUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataData managementMetadata managementData scienceData management planComputer scienceData integrationSoftware versioningData mappingData extractionData elementResearch dataData virtualizationData curationDatabaseWorld Wide WebSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ubiquity of data lakes has created fascinating new challenges for data management research. In this tutorial, we review the state-of-the-art in data management for data lakes. We consider how data lakes are introducing new problems including dataset discovery and how they are changing the requirements for classic problems including data extraction, data cleaning, data integration, data versioning, and metadata management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0130.017
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.018

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.390
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations236
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207