Discovering relevance knowledge in data: a growing cell structures approach
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
Both information retrieval and case-based reasoning systems rely on effective and efficient selection of relevant data. Typically, relevance in such systems is approximated by similarity or indexing models. However, the definition of what makes data items similar or how they should be indexed is often nontrivial and time-consuming. Based on growing cell structure artificial neural networks, this paper presents a method that automatically constructs a case retrieval model from existing data. Within the case-based reasoning (CBR) framework, the method is evaluated for two medical prognosis tasks, namely, colorectal cancer survival and coronary heart disease risk prognosis. The results of the experiments suggest that the proposed method is effective and robust. To gain a deeper insight and understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the proposed model, a detailed empirical analysis of the models structural and behavioral properties is also provided.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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