MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1649582405

Interactive Natural Language Query Construction for Report Generation

2012· article· en· W1649582405 on OpenAlexaff
Fred Popowich, Milan Mosny, David Lindberg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsResponse Biomedical (Canada)Simon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceQuestion answeringNatural language user interfaceNatural languageInterface (matter)Natural language generationDomain (mathematical analysis)GrammarPoint (geometry)Natural language processingUser interfaceInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebSelection (genetic algorithm)Artificial intelligenceLinguisticsProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Question answering is an age old AI challenge. How we approach this challenge is determined by decisions regarding the linguistic and domain knowledge our system will need, the technical and business acumen of our users, the interface used to input questions, and the form in which we should present answers to a user’s questions. Our approach to question answering involves the interactive construction of natural language queries. We describe and evaluate a question answering system that provides a point-and-click, webbased interface in conjunction with a semantic grammar to support user-controlled natural language question generation. A preliminary evaluation is performed using a selection of 12 questions based on the Adventure Works sample database. 1

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207