Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a domain-independent framework for searching and retrieving facts and relationships within natural language text sources. In this framework, an extraction task over a text collection is expressed as a query that combines text fragments with wild cards, and the query result is a set of facts in the form of unary, binary and general $n$-ary tuples. A significance of our querying mechanism is that, despite being both simple and declarative, it can be applied to a wide range of extraction tasks. A problem in querying natural language text though is that a user-specified query may not retrieve enough exact matches. Unlike term queries which can be relaxed by removing some of the terms (as is done in search engines), removing terms from a wild card query without ruining its meaning is more challenging. Also, any query expansion has the potential to introduce false positives. In this paper, we address the problem of query expansion, and also analyze a few ranking alternatives to score the results and to remove false positives. We conduct experiments and report an evaluation of the effectiveness of our querying and scoring functions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".