data(gpu): cite the Wikipedia GPU lists on 481 records - #142
Merged
Merged
Conversation
84% of GPU records carried only a kaggle.com URL. The verification layer reads that as tier 3, which keeps a record yellow no matter how complete it is — GPU sits at 12% green while CPU, which picked up Wikipedia citations during the spec-fill batches, is at 65%. Wikipedia's per-vendor GPU lists document these same cards, so where a row could be matched AND a spec we already hold agreed with it, the page is added as a source. 1,006 rows parsed, 716 matched a record, 663 confirmed; 145 of those already had a tier-1 source, leaving 481 to cite. The spec agreement is the whole point: it makes the citation a claim about this card rather than a same-name lookalike. Confirmation came from base_clock_mhz (372) or tdp_w (146); the 53 rows that matched by name but agreed on neither were skipped rather than cited. No field values are changed — only source_urls gains an entry. Refs #1
Regenerates site/public/v1/gpus for the 481 records changed in the previous commit, with the engine at the pinned submodule commit. Only pages whose content actually differs are committed; 3,580 timestamp-only pages are left alone. Refs #1
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why
84% of GPU records carry only a
kaggle.comURL. The verification layer reads that as tier 3, and its green band requires a tier-1/2 source — so those records stay yellow no matter how complete they are.The contrast is measurable: CPU is at 65% green after the spec-fill batches gave it Wikipedia citations, while GPU sits at 12%, untouched.
What
Wikipedia's per-vendor GPU lists document these same cards, so the page is added as a source where a row could be matched and a spec we already hold agreed with it.
Confirmation came from
base_clock_mhz(372) ortdp_w(146). The 53 rows that matched by name but agreed on neither were skipped rather than cited.That agreement check is the substance here — it makes the citation a claim about this card rather than a same-name lookalike, which is exactly what the verification layer is asking about ("is this a real, documented part?").
No field values change.
source_urlsgains one entry; nothing else is touched.python -m app.validate→ Data validation passed. Dump refreshed for the 481 changed pages only.Closes #1