MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096275883

DistributedGstribute Data Access on the WWW

2001· article· en· W7096275883 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeospatial analysisMetadataJavaServerData accessCommon Object Request Broker ArchitectureWeb Coverage ServiceInterface (matter)Raster data
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis investigates the design and implementation of a Web-based distributed geospatial data warehouse (WDGSDW) system which allows a user to query geographical information and access the geospatial data services across multiple servers over the Internet. A multi-tiered client/server architecture was used to implement WDGSDW. The CORBA-based (for Java and C++), Java RMI-based and Java servlet-based implementations of the server-side components of DWGSDW are tested and compared for the contextual data service, which providing the user interface of WDGSDW. The comparison showed that the performance of servlets-based implementation is much better than those of other implementations. The servlets technique was chosen to implement an experimental catalog server and geospatial data servers. An integrated tool to visualize the Canada Land Inventory data (in Arc/InfoE xport.E 00 format) and raster image data was also implemented in this research. The search engine, which is the kernel of WDGSDW, supports combined text search and geographical search with an adjustable match factor. The search engine was built using R-Tree and AVL-Tree indexes. WDGSDW system was tested using test data sets containing 6979 CE ONet metadata files, 1690 CLI vector data sets and 45 CCRS raster data sets. For the contextual data server, CORBA and RMI techniques are 2 to 2.5 time slower compared to the Java servlet and a performance of 85 bytes/ms was observed for the latter, on average. The keyword searches can take up to 4.9 seconds compared to bounding box searches times of less than 2.5 seconds on a catalogue containing 8188 entries. A combined keyword and bounding box search requires an average of 1.2 times more than the individual searches. For a fixed bounding box [200, 350; 20, 84], ...

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.013

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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeographic Information Systems StudiesFrench-language works237,207