MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050154860 · doi:10.1111/1467-9671.00132

Handling Grammatical Errors, Ambiguity and Impreciseness in GIS Natural Language Queries

2003· article· en· W2050154860 on OpenAlex

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

VenueTransactions in GIS · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceExecutableAmbiguityNatural languageNatural language user interfaceQuery languageParsingRDF query languageNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceQuery expansionWeb query classificationInformation retrievalWeb search queryProgramming languageSearch engine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A natural language query interface is very desirable for a geographic information system (GIS). It converts natural language queries (sentences) into a formal query language. A key task in building a natural language query interface is handling uncertainty and impreciseness. Grammatical errors and parsing ambiguity cause uncertainty. A natural language query may contain imprecise terms that have to be processed before an executable query can be generated. In this paper, a three–step technique is presented that can be used to correct grammatically incomplete natural language queries, solve parsing ambiguity, and translate imprecise conditions into executable selection conditions.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · 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