CoralDB: A Collaborative Database for Data Sharing Based on Permissioned Blockchain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systems that integrate distributed databases and existing blockchain platforms have recently emerged, which conveniently leverage their respective strengths to build efficient, secure, and usable data sharing and collaboration environments for different organizations. However, the performance of such systems can be limited by the native blockchain platforms due to the high latency of transactions. In this paper, we present CoralDB, a bottom-up fully redesigned hybrid system of blockchain and database, aimed at enabling untrusted organizations to collaborate and share data efficiently and securely at the database level. The storage layer of CoralDB ensures data security and system throughput through key modules such as customized block structure, consensus mechanism, and transaction pool. On top of the storage layer, a database layer is introduced, which extends the blockchain of the storage layer by incorporating connection pools, collaborative tables, and query interfaces, to enhance the usability and efficiency of data collaboration and sharing. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that CoralDB provides security assurances at the level of blockchain and enables efficient decentralized data collaboration and sharing.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".