MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406734274 · doi:10.4230/lipics.icdt.2025.15

Query Repairs

2025· preprint· en· W4406734274 on OpenAlexaff
Balder ten Cate, Phokion G. Kolaitis, Carsten Lutz

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We formalize and study the problem of repairing database queries based on user feedback in the form of a collection of labeled examples. We propose a framework based on the notion of a proximity pre-order, and we investigate and compare query repairs for conjunctive queries (CQs) using different such pre-orders. The proximity pre-orders we consider are based on query containment and on distance metrics for CQs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207