Time-based calibration of 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
Many current effectiveness measures incorporate simplifying assumptions about user behavior. These assumptions prevent the measures from reflecting aspects of the search process that directly impact the quality of retrieval results as experienced by the user. In particular, these measures implicitly model users as working down a list of retrieval results, spending equal time assessing each document. In reality, even a careful user, intending to identify as much relevant material as possible, must spend longer on some documents than on others. Aspects such as document length, duplicates and summaries all influence the time required. In this paper, we introduce a time-biased gain measure, which explicitly accommodates such aspects of the search process. By conducting an appropriate user study, we calibrate and validate the measure against the TREC 2005 Robust Track test collection. We examine properties of the measure, contrasting it to traditional effectiveness measures, and exploring its extension to other aspects and environments. As its primary benefit, the measure allows us to evaluate system performance in human terms, while maintaining the simplicity and repeatability of system-oriented tests. Overall, we aim to achieve a clearer connection between user-oriented studies and system-oriented tests, allowing us to better transfer insights and outcomes from one to the other.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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