Enhancing Text Retrieval Performance using Conceptual Ontological Graph
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of the data representation techniques are based on word and/or phrase analysis of the text. The statistical analysis of a term (word or phrase) frequency captures the importance of the term within a document. However, to achieve a more accurate analysis, the underlying data representation should indicate terms that capture the semantics of the text from which the importance of a term in a sentence and in the document can be derived. A new concept-based representation that relies on the analysis of the sentence semantics, rather than, the traditional analysis of the document dataset only is introduced. The proposed conceptual ontological graph representation denotes the terms which contribute to the sentence semantics. Then, each term is chosen based on its position in the proposed representation. Lastly, the selected terms are associated to their documents as features for the purpose of indexing in the text retrieval. Experiments using the proposed conceptual ontological graph representation in text retrieval are conducted. The evaluation of results is relied on two quality measures, the precision and the recall. Both of these quality measures improved when the newly developed representation is used to enhance the performance of the text retrieval
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it