MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138523425 · doi:10.1109/dcc.1992.227475

Constructing word-based text compression algorithms

2003· article· en· W2138523425 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
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuffman codingWord (group theory)ASCIIComputer scienceContext (archaeology)AlgorithmCompression (physics)Data compressionAlphanumericSigmaAlphabetWord problem (mathematics education)Compression ratioLossless compressionTheoretical computer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceArithmeticMathematicsProgramming languageLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Text compression algorithms are normally defined in terms of a source alphabet Sigma of 8-bit ASCII codes. The authors consider choosing Sigma to be an alphabet whose symbols are the words of English or, in general, alternate maximal strings of alphanumeric characters and nonalphanumeric characters. The compression algorithm would be able to take advantage of longer-range correlations between words and thus achieve better compression. The large size of Sigma leads to some implementation problems, but these are overcome to construct word-based LZW, word-based adaptive Huffman, and word-based context modelling compression algorithms.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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 score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations86
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207