Mining search and browse logs for web search
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
Huge amounts of search log data have been accumulated at Web search engines. Currently, a popular Web search engine may receive billions of queries and collect terabytes of records about user search behavior daily. Beside search log data, huge amounts of browse log data have also been collected through client-side browser plugins. Such massive amounts of search and browse log data provide great opportunities for mining the wisdom of crowds and improving Web search. At the same time, designing effective and efficient methods to clean, process, and model log data also presents great challenges. In this survey, we focus on mining search and browse log data for Web search. We start with an introduction to search and browse log data and an overview of frequently-used data summarizations in log mining. We then elaborate how log mining applications enhance the five major components of a search engine, namely, query understanding, document understanding, document ranking, user understanding, and monitoring and feedback. For each aspect, we survey the major tasks, fundamental principles, and state-of-the-art methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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