Extracting OLAP Cubes From Document-Oriented NoSQL Database Based on Parallel Similarity Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, the relational database is not suitable for data management due to the large variety and volume of data which are mostly untrusted. Therefore, NoSQL has attracted the attention of companies. Despite it being a proper choice for managing a variety of large volume data, there is a big challenge and difficulty in performing online analytical processing (OLAP) on NoSQL since it is schema-less. This article aims to introduce a model to overcome null value in converting document-oriented NoSQL databases into relational databases using parallel similarity techniques. The proposed model includes four phases, shingling, chunck, minhashing, and locality-sensitive hashing MapReduce (LSHMR). Each phase performs a proper process on input NoSQL databases. The main idea of LSHMR is based on the nature of both locality-sensitive hashing (LSH) and MapReduce (MR). In this article, the LSH similarity search technique is used on the MR framework to extract OLAP cubes. LSH is used to decrease the number of comparisons. Furthermore, MR enables efficient distributed and parallel computing. The proposed model is an efficient and suitable approach for extracting OLAP cubes from an NoSQL 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".