MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W75725614

TR-2007-18:Optimizing Acquaintance Selection in a PDMS

2007· article· en· W75725614 on OpenAlexaff
Jian Xu, Rachel Pottinger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Scheme (mathematics)Information retrievalQuality (philosophy)Peer-to-peerWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a Peer Data Management System (PDMS), autonomous peers share semantically rich data. For queries to be translated across peers, a peer must provide a mapping to other peers in the PDMS; peers connected by such mappings are called acquaintances. To maximize query answering ability, a peer needs to optimize its choice of acquaintances. This paper introduces a novel framework for performing acquaintance selection. Our framework includes two selection schemes that efiectively and e‐ciently estimate mapping quality. The\one-shotscheme clusters peers and estimates the improvement in query answering based on cluster properties. The \two-hop scheme, estimates using locally available information at multiple rounds. Our empirical study shows that both schemes efiectively help acquaintance selection and scale to PDMSs with large number of peers.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207