MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996246161 · doi:10.1145/1277741.1277895

Improving retrieval accuracy by weighting document types with clickthrough data

2007· article· en· W1996246161 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Yeung, Charles L. A. Clarke, Stefan Büttcher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeightingComputer scienceTask (project management)Relevance (law)Information retrievalDocument retrievalFunction (biology)Term (time)Vector space modelRelevance feedbacktf–idfArtificial intelligenceData miningImage retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For enterprise search, there exists a relationship between work task and document type that can be used to refine search results. In this poster, we adapt the popular Okapi BM25 scoring function to weight term frequency based on the relevance of a document type to a work task. Also, we use click frequency for each task-type pair to estimate a realistic weight. Using the W3C collection from the TREC Enterprise track for evaluations, our approach leads to significant improvements on search precision.

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)0.035
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorFrench-language works237,207