MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W104649228

Interfacing Issues for Information Extraction

2000· article· en· W104649228 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Vanderheyden, Robin Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation retrievalQuery expansionDomain (mathematical analysis)Information extractionTask (project management)Query languageUser interfaceWorld Wide WebProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional approaches to information extraction implicitly assume that many elements of the task are static — the user’s query, and the description of domain and corpus, for example. We believe that in many real situations, however, this assumption does not hold and it is important to consider how the system could best support interaction with the user when the assumption breaks down. Current goals in the information extraction community are for the system to produce accurate results while being easy to retrain and port to a new domain. We seek to extend current approaches to handle dynamic elements of the problem. “Evolving queries”, discussed in the information retrieval (IR) literature, need to be supported by information extraction (IE) systems; IR and IE are both, after all, tools for gathering information from documents in response to a user query. When a casual user — neither an expert in the use of the system, nor in the domain — engages in any information gathering task, there will be an initial phase of investigation and discovery during which the user becomes familiar with the system, the domain, and the documents in the corpus and the user’s query may change over time or evolve. For example, a user may have a query about terrorist activities, asking for the names of perpetrators and the locations of targets; an interim system output prompts the user to refine the query, redefining terrorist activities as involving only a subset of weapons while generalizing to allow for additional (e.g., government) perpetrators. The query is not the only element that may change over time; certainly the domain evolves as additional documents are processed. As well, when the corpus is very large or dynamic (e.g., the Internet), the corpus itself may be seen as evolving — rules for mapping text patterns to query items that apply at one time or for one portion of the corpus no longer apply for another. To provide more robust support for information extraction in a dynamic environment, we consider such issues as:

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.130
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.130
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0220.044
Open science0.0060.020
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.025

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207