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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of mapping data in peer-to-peer data-sharing systems. Such systems often rely on the use of mapping tables listing pairs of corresponding values to search for data residing in different peers. In this paper, we address semantic and algorithmic issues related to the use of mapping tables. We begin by arguing why mapping tables are appropriate for data mapping in a peer-to-peer environment. We discuss alternative semantics for these tables and we present a language that allows the user to specify mapping tables under different semantics. Then, we show that by treating mapping tables as constraints (called mapping constraints) on the exchange of information between peers it is possible to reason about them. We motivate why reasoning capabilities are needed to manage mapping tables and show the importance of inferring new mapping tables from existing ones. We study the complexity of this problem and we propose an efficient algorithm for its solution. Finally, we present an implementation along with experimental results that show that mapping tables may be managed efficiently in practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it