MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105897558 · doi:10.1162/coli.2009.35.4.35402

From Annotator Agreement to Noise Models

2009· article· en· W2105897558 on OpenAlexaff
Beata Beigman Klebanov, Eyal Beigman

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational Linguistics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmarkingComputer scienceNoise (video)AgreementData setQuality (philosophy)Set (abstract data type)Resource (disambiguation)Data qualityData miningData scienceEconometricsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsLinguisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the transition from annotated data to a gold standard, that is, a subset that is sufficiently noise-free with high confidence. Unless appropriately reinterpreted, agreement coefficients do not indicate the quality of the data set as a benchmarking resource: High overall agreement is neither sufficient nor necessary to distill some amount of highly reliable data from the annotated material. A mathematical framework is developed that allows estimation of the noise level of the agreed subset of annotated data, which helps promote cautious benchmarking.

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)0.271
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.543
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2710.543
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0050.019
Scholarly communication0.0150.021
Open science0.0070.020
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.274
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations77
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational LinguisticsSame topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207