Micro-level Modularity of Computaion-intensive Programs in Big Data Platforms: A Case Study with Image Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid advancement of Big Data platforms such as Hadoop, Spark, and Dataflow, many tools are being developed that are intended to provide end users with an interactive environment for large-scale data analysis (e.g., IQmulus). However, there are challenges using these platforms. For example, developers find it difficult to use these platforms when developing interactive and reusable data analytic tools. One approach to better support interactivity and reusability is the use of microlevel modularisation for computation-intensive tasks, which splits data operations into independent, composable modules. However, modularizing data and computation-intensive tasks into independent components differs from traditional programming, e.g., when accessing large scale data, controlling data-flow among components, and structuring computation logic. In this paper, we present a case study on modularizing real world computationintensive tasks that investigates the impact of modularization on processing large scale image data. To that end, we synthesize image data-processing patterns and propose a unified modular model for the effective implementation of computation-intensive tasks on data-parallel frameworks considering reproducibility, reusability, and customization. We present various insights of using the modularity model based on our experimental results from running image processing tasks on Spark and Hadoop clusters.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".