MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045517286 · doi:10.1109/icdim.2010.5664669

Latent semantic indexing and large dataset: Study of term-weighting schemes

2010· article· en· W2045517286 on OpenAlex
ANK Zaman

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWeightingInformation retrievalTerm (time)Search engine indexingPrecision and recallDocument retrievalLatent semantic analysisGraphTerm DiscriminationData miningSearch engineConcept searchWeb search query

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary purpose of an information retrieval (IR) system is to retrieve all the relevant documents, which are relevant to the user query. Latent Semantic Indexing/Analysis (LSI/LSA) based ad hoc document retrieval task investigates the performance of retrieval systems that search a static set of documents using new questions. Performance of LSI has been tested by others for several smaller datasets (e.g. MED, CISI abstracts) however, LSI has not been tested for a large dataset. So, we decided to test LSI for a very large dataset. We used TREC-8 LA Times dataset for our experimentation. We applied three different term weighting schemes and our own stop word list to judge the performance. Recall-precision graph and Coefficient of Variation (CV) were used to evaluate the retrieval performance of LSI based retrieval system. We found tf-idf term weighting scheme performs better than log-entropy and raw term frequency weighting schemes when the test collection became very large.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207