MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041889759 · doi:10.1145/2641383.2641388

Report on the CIKM workshop on living labs for information retrieval evaluation

2014· article· en· W2041889759 on OpenAlexaff
Krisztian Balog, David Elsweiler, Evangelos Kanoulas, Liadh Kelly, Mark D. Smucker

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGIR Forum · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSession (web analytics)Scope (computer science)Information retrievalWorld Wide WebData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluation is a central aspect of information retrieval (IR) research. In the past few years, a new evaluation methodology known as living labs has been proposed as a way for researchers to be able to perform in-situ evaluation. The first CIKM workshop on Living Labs for IR evaluation (LL'13) was held on 1st November 2013 in San Francisco, USA. The workshop consisted of an industrial keynote, four oral paper presentations, three demo presentations, and a discussion session. This report presents an overview of the scope and contents of the workshop and outlines the major outcomes.

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)0.131
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1310.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0150.014
Open science0.0060.012
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.027

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 head0.245
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.191 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGIR ForumSame topicPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorFrench-language works237,207