Scalable statistical-relational model discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many organisations store large amounts of data in relational databases and require efficient ways to extract useful information from them.Machine learning models learned from these databases enable intelligent queries to be answered.Typically these models require sufficient statistics in the form of frequency counts, which are efficiently captured by a contingency table (ct-table).Several techniques have been developed to generate ct-tables from a single table; however, in the case of multi-relational databases, unique challenges arise making these solutions inappropriate to use.In particular, the data is spread across multiple tables and must be joined to determine the correct frequency counts.In addition, counts for the non-existing relationships must be inferred as they are not explicitly stored in the database.This thesis presents a novel hybrid-counting (HYBRID) approach to computing ct-tables from relational databases that combines pre-counting (PRECOUNT) and post-counting (ONDEMAND) methods to provide a technique that is able to address the weaknesses in both methods.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".