MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981715964

MultiText Legal Experiments at TREC 2008.

2008· article· en· W1981715964 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRanking (information retrieval)Computer scienceLogistic regressionStepwise regressionRegressionInformation retrievalSearch engineArtificial intelligenceValue (mathematics)Training setData miningMachine learningStatisticsMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our TREC 2008 e ort used fusion IR methods identical to those used for our TREC 2007 e ort; in addition we used logistic regression to attempt to learn the optimal K value for the primary F1@K measure introduced at TREC 2008. We used the Wumpus search engine combining several methods that have proven successful, including cover density ranking and Okapi BM25 ranking, and combination methods. Stepwise logistic regression was used to estimate K using TREC 2007 results as training data. 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207