Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management of uncertain data in numerous real life applications has attracted the attention of database and artificial intelligent research communities. This has resulted in development of new database management systems (DBMS) in which uncertainty is treated as first class citizens. We follow a different approach in this thesis and develop a system (to which we refer as DBMS with Uncertainty, or UDBMS) which is capable of representing and manipulating uncertain data at the application level on top of a standard relational DBMS. Compared to the first approach which treats uncertainty as its first class citizens, the proposed approach may be considered as “light weight” because it is built upon existing database technologies. As the underlying uncertainty formalism, we consider the Information Source Tracking (IST) method, which is essentially probabilistic. We extend the standard SQL language with uncertainty (to which we refer as USQL), to express queries and transactions in our context. The query processing and optimization techniques are extended accordingly to take into account the presence of uncertainty. To evaluate the performance of UDBMS, we conducted extensive experiments using USQL queries and IST relations obtained by extending the standard TPC-H benchmark queries and generated data. We compare and discuss the two approaches mentioned for uncertainty management. Our results indicate that the performance of the proposed UDBMS is reasonably good when the relations involved can be loaded completely into the main memory.
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 | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".