Modeling geographic, temporal, and proximity contexts for improving geotemporal search
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional information retrieval ( IR ) systems show significant limitations on returning relevant documents that satisfy the user's information needs. In particular, to answer geographic and temporal user queries, the IR task becomes a nonstraightforward process where the available geographic and temporal information is often unstructured. In this article, we propose a geotemporal search approach that consists of modeling and exploiting geographic and temporal query context evidence that refers to implicit multivarying geographic and temporal intents behind the query. Modeling geographic and temporal query contexts is based on extracting and ranking geographic and temporal keywords found in pseudo‐relevant feedback ( PRF ) documents for a given query. Our geotemporal search approach is based on exploiting the geographic and temporal query contexts separately into a probabilistic ranking model and jointly into a proximity ranking model. Our hypothesis is based on the concept that geographic and temporal expressions tend to co‐occur within the document where the closer they are in the document, the more relevant the document is. Finally, geographic, temporal, and proximity scores are combined according to a linear combination formula. An extensive experimental evaluation conducted on a portion of the N ew Y ork T imes news collection and the TREC 2004 robust retrieval track collection shows that our geotemporal approach outperforms significantly a well‐known baseline search and the best known geotemporal search approaches in the domain. Finally, an in‐depth analysis shows a positive correlation between the geographic and temporal query sensitivity and the retrieval performance. Also, we find that geotemporal distance has a positive impact on retrieval performance generally.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it