MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120520504 · doi:10.5815/ijmecs.2015.01.01

Semantic Question Generation Using Artificial Immunity

2015· article· en· W2120520504 on OpenAlex
Ibrahim Eldesoky Fattoh, Amal Elsayed Aboutabl, Mohamed H. Haggag

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

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSentencePreprocessorArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingClassifier (UML)Set (abstract data type)Test setMatching (statistics)Semantic role labeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research proposes an automatic question generation model for evaluating the understanding of semantic attributes in a sentence. The Semantic Role Labeling and Named Entity Recognition are used as a preprocessing step to convert the input sentence into a semantic pattern. The Artificial Immune System is used to build a classifier that will be able to classify the patterns according to the question type in the training phase. The question types considered here are the set of WH-questions like who, when, where, why, and how. A pattern matching phase is applied for selecting the best matching question pattern for the test sentence. The proposed model is tested against a set of sentences obtained from many sources such as the TREC 2007 dataset for question answering, Wikipedia articles, and English book of grade II preparatory. The experimental results of the proposed model are promising in determining the question type with classification accuracy reaching 95%, and 87% in generating the new question patterns.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.265 · 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