Bibliographic record
Abstract
Huge amounts of search log data have been accumulated in various search engines. Currently, a commercial search engine receives billions of queries and collects tera-bytes of log data on any single day. Other than search log data, browse logs can be collected by client-side browser plug-ins, which record the browse information if users' permissions are granted. Such massive amounts of search/browse log data, on the one hand, provide great opportunities to mine the wisdom of crowds and improve web search results. On the other hand, designing effective and efficient methods to clean, model, and process large scale log data also presents great challenges. In this tutorial, we will focus on mining search and browse log data for search engines. We will start with an introduction of search and browse log data and an overview of frequently-used data summarization in log mining. We will then elaborate how log mining applications enhance the five major components of a search engine, namely, query understanding, document understanding, query-document matching, user understanding, and monitoring and feedbacks. For each aspect, we will survey the major tasks, fundamental principles, and state-of-the-art methods. Finally, we will discuss the challenges and future trends of log data mining. The goal of this tutorial is to provide a systematic survey on large-scale search/browse log mining to the IR community. It may help IR researchers to get familiar with the core challenges and promising directions in log mining. At the same time, this tutorial may also serve the developers of web information retrieval systems as a comprehensive and in-depth reference to the advanced log mining techniques.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".