MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002329003 · doi:10.3166/isi.12.2.61-73

Approche pour l'adaptation de l'interrogation de documents semi-structurés

2007· article· fr· W2002329003 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb Applications and Data Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterrogationAdaptation (eye)HumanitiesPhysicsGeographyArtOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to adapt information to the user, an adaptive hypermedia system (AHS) must have on the one hand, the user model, on the other hand, the adaptation process. The user model is based on user knowledge relating to the specific domain. The adaptation process is based generally on rules expressed for example through description logics. In this article, we propose an approach for the dynamic adaptation of semi-structured documents to the user. This approach is based on adaptation algorithm. The adaptation algorithm aims to take into account the user characteristics in the query before its evaluation in order to propose the results more relevant from the user point of view. First, we present the user model. Then, we describe the adaptation algorithm. An example illustrating the stages suggested for the adaptation is given through a querying tool.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.007
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.241 · 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