MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074811005 · doi:10.1145/2633211.2634351

Tulip

2014· article· en· W2074811005 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCentroidInformation retrievalFeature (linguistics)Entity linkingSet (abstract data type)Context (archaeology)Feature vectorGraphArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingTheoretical computer scienceKnowledge baseLinguisticsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents Tulip, an ERD system submitted to the ERD 2014: Entity Recognition and Disambiguation Challenge. The objective of the proposed system is to spot mentions of entities in a document and link the mentions to corresponding Freebase articles. To achieve it, Tulip prunes the set of entity candidates focusing on a core subset of related entities capturing the context of the document. The relationship strength is measured as a similarity to a topic centroid generated from entity features. Each entity is represented by an accurate and compact feature vector extracted from a category graph built based on information from 120 language versions of Wikipedia. Given the core set of accepted entities Tulip uses the Wikipedia-based feature vectors to extract more related entities from the document text. Tulip received the first prize in the long document track with F1 score of 0.74, which confirms the effectiveness of our system. At the same, the system was faster than all other submissions with latency under 0.29 seconds.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207