MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062666034 · doi:10.2495/data070181

Performance of information retrieval models using term co-occurrences

2007· article· en· W2062666034 on OpenAlex
Guy Desjardins, Robert Godin, Robert Proulx

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

VenueWIT transactions on information and communication technologies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVector space modelTerm DiscriminationDivergence-from-randomness modelScalabilityStandard Boolean modelSet (abstract data type)ExploitTerm (time)Information retrievalBoolean modelData miningArtificial intelligenceSearch engineBoolean functionConcept searchDatabaseAlgorithmBoolean expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many advanced models have been developed for information retrieval in recent years. These models are built on various artificial intelligence paradigms to improve the precision of the retrieval. Most of them exploit some form of term co-occurrences to improve retrieval quality. In this paper, we compare the retrieval performance of five of these models: the Extended Boolean model, the Generalized Vector Space model, the Frequent Set model, the Rough Set model and a Genetic-Based model. These models are tested on three sub-collections from TREC (Text REtrieval Conference). We analyze the specificity of the models regarding the form of co-occurrences introduced and report on the retrieval performance and the scalability of each model.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.233 · 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