Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data from different sources rarely conform to a single formatting even if they describe the same set of entities, and this raises concerns when data from multiple sources must be joined or cross-referenced. Such a formatting mismatch is unavoidable when data is gathered from various public and third-party sources. Commercial database systems are not able to perform the join when there exist differences in data representation or formatting, and manual reformatting is both time consuming and error-prone. We study the problem of efficiently joining textual data under the condition that the join columns are not formatted the same and cannot be equi-joined, but they become joinable under some transformations. The problem is challenging simply because the number of possible transformations explodes with both the length of the input and the number of rows, even if each transformation is formed using very few basic units. We show that an efficient algorithm can be developed based on the common characteristics of the joined columns and over a rich set of basic operations that can be composed to form transformations. Compared to a state-of-the-art approach, our algorithm covers every transformation that is covered in the state-of-the-art approach but is a few orders of magnitude faster, as evaluated on various real and synthetic data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".