MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391557256 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202429503010

DUNE Database Development

2024· article· en· W4391557256 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ana Paula Vizcaya Hernández, L. O. Gerlach

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHigh Energy PhysicsHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOffice of ScienceEuropean CommissionMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueMinisterstvo Školství, Mládeže a TělovýchovyEuropean Regional Development FundU.S. Department of EnergyJunta de AndalucíaFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de GoiásFermilabUK Research and InnovationNational Science FoundationRoyal SocietyXunta de GaliciaCERNFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsDatabaseGeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The DUNE experiment will produce vast amounts of metadata, which describe the data coming from the read-out of the primary DUNE detectors. Various databases will make up the overall DB architecture for this metadata. ProtoDUNE at CERN is the largest existing prototype for DUNE and serves as a testing ground for - among other things - possible database solutions for DUNE. The subset of all metadata that is accessed during offline data reconstruction and analysis is referred to as ‘conditions data’ and it is stored in a dedicated database. As offline data reconstruction and analysis will be deployed on HTC and HPC resources, conditions data is expected to be accessed at very high rates. It is therefore crucial to store it in a granularity that matches the expected access patterns allowing for extensive caching. This requires a good understanding of the sources and use cases of conditions data. This contribution will briefly summarize the database architecture deployed at ProtoDUNE and explain the various sources of conditions data. We will present how the conditions data is retrieved and streamed from the databases and how it is handled to match expected access patterns.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207