MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068580719 · doi:10.1162/coli_r_00056

<b>Cross-Language Information Retrieval Jian-Yun Nie</b> (University of Montreal) San Rafael, CA: Morgan &amp; Claypool (Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, edited by Graeme Hirst, volume 8), 2010, xv+125 pp; paperbound, ISBN 978-1-59829-863-5, $40.00; ebook, ISBN 978-1-59829-864-3, $30.00 or by subscription

2011· article· en· W2068580719 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcello Federico

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational Linguistics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolume (thermodynamics)JianHumanitiesComputer scienceArtLiteraturePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-Language Information Retrieval is a compact book introducing a branch of information retrieval that has gained considerable research interest since the dawn of the World Wide Web in the mid 1990s.Information retrieval is generally concerned with the problem of finding documents within a large collection that are relevant to a given input query.Whereas the original formulation of IR assumes that queries and documents are written in the same language, cross-language IR (CLIR) presumes instead that they are written in two different languages.If the collection contains documents in more languages, then we refer to multi-lingual IR (MLIR), which is typically solved with multiple instances of CLIR.Recently, other variations on the theme have been proposed that address non-textual documents, such as image, music, and speech retrieval.An interesting application of CLIR is the retrieval of images that are provided with textual descriptions in any language.Computational linguistics could be interested in CLIR for several reasons.CLIR is mainly about the optimal integration of machine translation (MT) and IR, and it presents peculiar and difficult translation issues when short queries are involved, which is the most common case.For such problems, interesting approaches have been developed and refined over time, which mainly build on top of core statistical MT techniques (e.g., word alignment models, translation models) and various lexical resources (e.g., WordNet, dictionaries).In recent years, several books on IR have been published (e.g., Grossman and Frieder 2004;Manning, Raghavan, and Sch ütze 2008;B üttcher, Clarke, and Cormack 2010), which devoted at most a section or chapter to CLIR.As specific books on CLIR have been limited so far to edited collections of scientific papers (Grefenstette 1998), it was definitely time for the first monograph on the topic.Jian-Yun Nie's volume is structured as five chapters, which are organized as follows:r Chapter 1, "Introduction," covers IR problems, approaches, and models, language problems in IR with European and East Asian languages, CLIR problems and approaches, needs for CLIR and MLIR, and a brief history of CLIR.r Chapter 2, "Using manually constructed translation systems and resources for CLIR," covers an introduction to MT, basic use of MT in CLIR, and dictionary-based translation for CLIR.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1370.093

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational LinguisticsSame topicInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorFrench-language works237,207