MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553670079 · doi:10.1002/bult.2014.1720400513

Google, tear down this wall to exploratory search!

2014· article· en· W1553670079 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Cole

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLanguage and cultural evolution
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExploratory searchComputer scienceSearch analyticsSearch engineInformation retrievalPerceptionSet (abstract data type)Semantic searchSearch engine indexingWorld Wide WebMeaning (existential)Process (computing)Exploratory researchCognitionHuman–computer interactionPsychologyWeb search query

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract EDITOR'S SUMMARY While Google serves traditional search needs adequately, it provides no assistance with exploratory search, unable to help a searcher crystallize a search goal. Evolutionary psychology illustrates a gradually developing search for meaning, combining beliefs with discovered knowledge, to expand a perceptual‐cognitive system. Similarly the information searcher progressively opens his or her cognitive system upon interacting with unfamiliar stimuli. The interactions typically occur in a series, with each new discovery or set of search results being associated with prior knowledge and other information sources, modifying the information need and helping to refine the search goal. This exploratory process may be followed by a command search for evidence to back up a thesis, a phase that Google serves well. An interactive, assisted, exploratory search is proposed. It has been demonstrated in Astrolabe, a prototype virtual search environment, and could be incorporated into the Google search engine.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Association for Information Science and TechnologySame topicLanguage and cultural evolutionFrench-language works237,207