MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W73329660

PROCEEDINGS OF FOURTH BERKELEY CONFERENCE ON DISTRIBUTED DATA MANAGEMENT AND COMPUTER NETWORKS.

2011· article· en· W73329660 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dennis Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital and Cyber Forensics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSLAC National Accelerator LaboratoryUniversity of WaterlooDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftU.S. Department of EnergyU.S. Department of DefenseAdvanced Research Projects AgencyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLibrary scienceComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data base access is increasingly important in a networking environment.Two alternative approaches can be identified: i) implementation of distributed databases presenting the user with one logical database implemented across a collection of computers or, alternatively, ii) development of network data managers providing a uniform user and program viewpoint across heterogenous DBMSs.While the first approach is the most natural extension of the concept of an individual DBMS, its utilization imposes certain requirements including the necessity for converting existing DBMSs if their data is to be supported in the distributed environment.The second approach minimiz.esor eliminates cO"lwersion problems; however, it has not yet caen shown feasible.This paper describes an ongoing research project concerned with establishing the feasibility, issues, alternatives, and a technical approach for supporting a network data manager.Although implementation has not been completed, the initial evidence is positive and suggests that network data managers may well prove either an acceptable alternative or useful intermediate stage to a distributed database.This work Is a contribution of the National Bureau of Standards and Is not subject to copyright.Partial

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.038

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.167 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicDigital and Cyber ForensicsFrench-language works237,207