MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100247763 · doi:10.5555/1182635.1164182

Similarity search: a matching based approach

2006· article· en· W2100247763 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
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNearest neighbor searchSimilarity (geometry)Computer scienceMatching (statistics)Object (grammar)Set (abstract data type)Curse of dimensionalityk-nearest neighbors algorithmData miningInformation retrievalMathematicsArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Similarity search is a crucial task in multimedia retrieval and data mining. Most existing work has modelled this problem as the nearest neighbor (NN) problem, which considers the distance between the query object and the data objects over a fixed set of features. Such an approach has two drawbacks: 1) it leaves many partial similarities uncovered; 2) the distance is often affected by a few dimensions with high dissimilarity. To overcome these drawbacks, we propose the k-n-match problem in this paper. The k-n-match problem models similarity search as matching between the query object and the data objects in n dimensions, where n is a given integer smaller than dimensionality d and these n dimensions are determined dynamically to make the query object and the data objects returned in the answer set match best. The k-n-match query is expected

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations39
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207