Bibliographic record
Abstract
This column was established by Richard Snodgrass in 1998 and was continued by Ken Ross from 1999 to 2005. It celebrated one of the key aspects that makes us grow as a research community: the papers that influence us. At each issue, different members of the data management community wrote anecdotes about a paper that had a unique impact in their career. The anecdotes highlighted that impact can come in many forms. A paper's value is not only in its citation count, but also in the way it influences individuals who in turn influence other individuals that make up our community. Such impact is not countable. When the SIGMOD Record's editor-in-chief Rada Chirkova approached me to revive this column last year, I was immediately excited. I would like to thank Rada Chirkova, Richard Snodgrass, and Ken Ross for this opportunity. I am delighted to present the three invited contributions for this issue. Hope you enjoy reading them as much as I did. While I will keep inviting members of the data management community, and neighboring communities, to contribute to this column, I also welcome unsolicited contributions. Please contact me if you are interested.
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 | 0.014 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.014 |
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".