MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000857250 · doi:10.1145/2644866.2644882

P-GTM

2014· article· en· W2000857250 on OpenAlexafffund
Owen Davison, Abidalrahman Mohammad, Evangelos Milios

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBoeing
KeywordsComputer sciencen-gramContext (archaeology)ComputationEncryptionInformation retrievalSemantic similaritySimilarity (geometry)PreprocessorGramData miningArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmLanguage modelComputer securityImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents P-GTM, a privacy-preserving text similarity algorithm that extends the Google Tri-gram Method (GTM). The Google Tri-gram Method is a high-performance unsupervised semantic text similarity method based on the use of context from the Google Web 1T n-gram dataset. P-GTM computes the semantic similarity between two input bag-of-words documents on public cloud hardware, without disclosing the documents' contents. Like the GTM, P-GTM requires the uni-gram and tri-gram lists from the Google Web 1T n-gram dataset as additional inputs. The need for these additional lists makes private computation of GTM text similarities a challenging problem. P-GTM uses a combination of pre-computation, encryption, and randomized preprocessing to enable private computation of text similarities using the GTM. We discuss the security of the algorithm and quantify its privacy using standard and real life corpora.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.008

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207