MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091632317 · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.300

Executing native Java code in R: an approach based on a local server

2020· article· en· W3091632317 on OpenAlexaff
Mathieu Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ Computer Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Analysis with R
Canadian institutionsCanadian Wood CouncilNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceJavaProgramming languagestrictfpMultithreadingOperating systemVectorization (mathematics)Java appletCode (set theory)Generics in JavaJava annotationReal time JavaParallel computingInterface (matter)Java concurrencyJava Modeling Language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The R language is widely used for data analysis. However, it does not allow for complex object-oriented implementation and it tends to be slower than other languages such as Java, C and C++. Consequently, it can be more computationally efficient to run native Java code in R. To do this, there exist at least two approaches. One is based on the Java Native Interface (JNI) and it has been successfully implemented in the rJava package. An alternative approach consists of running a local server in Java and linking it to an R environment through a socket connection. This alternative approach has been implemented in an R package called J4R. This article shows how this approach makes it possible to simplify the calls to Java methods and to integrate the R vectorization. The downside is a loss of performance. However, if the vectorization is used in conjunction with multithreading, this loss of performance can be compensated for.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.030

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJ Computer ScienceSame topicData Analysis with RFrench-language works237,207