High-Recall Information Retrieval from Linked Big Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current era of big data, high volumes of valuable information are available in collections of documents, the web, social networks, and high varieties of linked data. To search and retrieve useful information from these linked data, users often enter queries into information retrieval (IR) systems. Among the information retrieved by these systems, some information is relevant to the user queries (i.e., Interested to the users), but some is not. Moreover, some relevant information may not be retrieved by the systems. The effectiveness of these IR systems is often measured by metrics such as precision and recall. Most of the conventional IR systems (e.g., For web searches) aim to achieve high precision (i.e., High percentage of the retrieved information is relevant) at the price of low recall (i.e., Low percentage of the relevant information is retrieved). However, there are real-life situations (e.g., Patent searches) in which having high recall is desirable. In this paper, we present two high-recall IR systems. Results of our evaluation show the effectiveness of our systems in providing high-recall IR from linked big data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".