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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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