MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W186780366

Advanced Web search based on formal concept analysis.

2001· dissertation· en· W186780366 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2001
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Explosive increase of global wide web using has led to "web searches" as one of the most important tasks in our daily lives. However, most web users discover that only a few results are valuable among thousands of results returned. The purpose of this thesis is to derive a new and improved way of web searching. To that end, research aimed at solving the above mentioned problems and surveying the methodologies or approaches adapted to them was found first. Some research papers give hints that help analyze user requirements for web searches. This survey on background research papers and user requirement analyses is one basis of my thesis. Another research area related to Formal Concept Analysis that is the theoretical background of my thesis is also surveyed. Following the research papers surveyed, a new searching methodology, the advanced web searching methodology based on formal concept analysis, is proposed. A lattice derived from the Formal Concept Analysis gives dynamic and interactive aspects to the new niche search engine. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2001 .K56. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 40-03, page: 0724. Adviser: Young-Gil Park. Thesis (M.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2001.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207