MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4250326346 · doi:10.1162/coli_r_00106

Briefly Noted

2012· article· en· W4250326346 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueComputational Linguistics · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueText and Document Classification Technologies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Learning to Rank for Information Retrieval and Natural Language ProcessingHang Li(Microsoft)Morgan & Claypool (Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, edited by Graeme Hirst, volume 12), 2011, ix+101 pp; paperbound, ISBN 978-1-60845-707-6, $40.00; ebook, ISBN 978-1-60845-708-3, $30.00 or by subscriptionThis short volume gives an introduction and overview of current techniques for learning to rank objects. This is of great interest in information retrieval. Document retrieval systems, meta-search, and collaborative filtering all involve ranking in one way or another. Closer to the computational linguistics audience, the book points out that statistical machine translation typically relies on a re-ranking step to promote better sentence predictions. The author, Hang Li, is a well-respected researcher in information retrieval. He is one of the leading figures on the topic of learning to rank, and is in the core team that maintains the LETOR collection, an important benchmark in that field. Li is therefore in an ideal position to produce a short introduction to the topic.The book itself is divided into seven very unbalanced chapters. The first two are an introduction to the field and a high-level overview of learning for ranking creation (as opposed to ranking aggregation, which has its own three-page chapter). The heart of this volume is Chapter 4, which lists and briefly describes a number of methods for learning ranking creation or aggregation. Out of 19 methods mentioned in Table 2.6, 12 are described further in that chapter. Additionally, the author covers ranking aggregation using Borda count, Markov chains, and Cranking. Although neither detailed nor exhaustive, this is certainly a fairly comprehensive treatment. A reader familiar with all these algorithms would certainly be well equipped to navigate the field. The book also provides many references in case the reader would want to further her understanding of the various algorithms. The last three chapters provide a very concise coverage of applications, theory, and future work, respectively.What is perhaps a bit disappointing with this volume is that in between and around the three main chapters (Chapters 1, 2, and 4), the rest of the book feels somewhat brief and superficial, almost like it was added to make a thorough review paper into a book. Another concern is that whereas the book lists a good number of methods and briefly described references, it is low on analysis and experimental results (apart from Section 2.3.4). A typical example is Chapter 4, which lists 15 methods but keeps their description to two to three high-level pages each. Also, and this is a rather surprising shortcoming of the publisher, the book suffers from an amount of typos and small mistakes that is unusual for this type of publication. For example, Table 2.2 introduces the LETOR benchmark as “LEOTR”!Who is this book for? In the course of writing this review I have been struggling with this issue. For somebody with only a casual interest in the field, it may not be didactic enough. On the other hand, my impression is that the concise treatment of the various methods and topics covered is not detailed enough for the researcher aiming at implementing learning-to-rank methods and applying them to his needs, such as for example reranking target predictions in machine translation.Computational linguists interested in the problem of learning to rank may indeed find in this volume a quick and fairly high-level description of a wide range of methods. If they are really interested in the topic, however, they may soon reach the limits of this book and have to turn to the actual papers describing the various methods in more detail in the relevant conferences and journals. The book’s bibliography could actually turn out to be a good starting point. —Cyril Goutte, National Research Council Canada

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,750
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,355

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle