MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001615126 · doi:10.1145/2701583.2701597

Report on the 1st International Workshop on Information Access in Smart Cities (i-ASC 2014)

2014· article· en· W2001615126 on OpenAlexaff
M‐Dyaa Albakour, Craig Macdonald, Iadh Ounis, Charles L. A. Clarke, Veli Biçer

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGIR Forum · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIBMComputer scienceSmart citySustainabilitySocial mediaEvent (particle physics)Information infrastructureInformation systemWorld Wide WebData sciencePolitical scienceInternet of Things

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern cities are increasingly becoming smart where a digital knowledge infrastructure is deployed by local authorities (e.g. City councils and municipalities) to better serve the information needs of their citizens, and to ensure the sustainability and efficient use of power and resources. This knowledge infrastructure consists of a wide range of systems from lowlevel physical sensors to advanced sensing devices through social sensors. The i-ASC 2014 workshop was the first international event, within the Information Retrieval (IR) community, that is dedicated to research on smart/future cities. In particular, the workshop was a venue for research on digesting the city's data streams and knowledge databases in order to serve the information needs of citizens and support decision making for local authorities. Possible use cases include helping tourists to find interesting places to go or activities to do while visiting a city, or assisting journalists in reporting local incidents. Indeed, the workshop was intended to foster the development of new information access and retrieval models that can harness effectively and efficiently the large number of heterogeneous big data streams in a city to provide a new generation of information services. The workshop was well attended, where more than 45 participants were officially registered. It featured two keynote talks from industry (IBM andWaag Society) and two invited talks from academia (Pisa and Edinburgh). In addition, seven refereed papers were presented before breakout groups considered questions and issues identified from a panel discussion.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1710.085

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGIR ForumSame topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207