On the informativeness of cascade and intent-aware effectiveness measures
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
The Maximum Entropy Method provides one technique for validating search engine effectiveness measures. Under this method, the value of an effectiveness measure is used as a constraint to estimate the most likely distribution of relevant documents under a maximum entropy assumption. This inferred distribution may then be compared to the actual distribution to quantify the "informativeness" of the measure. The inferred distribution may also be used to estimate values for other effectiveness measures. Previous work focused on traditional effectiveness measures, such as average precision. In this paper, we extend the Maximum Entropy Method to the newer cascade and intent-aware effectiveness measures by considering the dependency of the documents ranked in a results list. These measures are intended to reflect the novelty and diversity of search results in addition to the traditional relevance. Our results indicate that intent-aware measures based on the cascade model are informative in terms of both inferring actual distribution and predicting the values of other retrieval measures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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