Repeatable and reliable search system evaluation using crowdsourcing
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
The primary problem confronting any new kind of search task is how to boot-strap a reliable and repeatable evaluation campaign, and a crowd-sourcing approach provides many advantages. However, can these crowd-sourced evaluations be repeated over long periods of time in a reliable manner? To demonstrate, we investigate creating an evaluation campaign for the semantic search task of keyword-based ad-hoc object retrieval. In contrast to traditional search over web-pages, object search aims at the retrieval of information from factual assertions about real-world objects rather than searching over web-pages with textual descriptions. Using the first large-scale evaluation campaign that specifically targets the task of ad-hoc Web object retrieval over a number of deployed systems, we demonstrate that crowd-sourced evaluation campaigns can be repeated over time and still maintain reliable results. Furthermore, we show how these results are comparable to expert judges when ranking systems and that the results hold over different evaluation and relevance metrics. This work provides empirical support for scalable, reliable, and repeatable search system evaluation using crowdsourcing.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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