MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152531434 · doi:10.1109/icdim.2010.5664665

Augmenting the visual presentation of Web search results

2010· article· en· W2152531434 on OpenAlexaff
Anwar Alhenshiri, Stephen Brooks, Carolyn Watters, Michael Shepherd

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb Data Mining and Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation retrievalSearch engineWeb search queryVisualizationRedundancy (engineering)Relevance (law)Presentation (obstetrics)Process (computing)Web query classificationWeb pageWorld Wide WebData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improving the relevancy of Web search results has been of increasing interest in recent years. The nature of the Web implies heterogeneity, large volumes, and varied structures. Hence, finding results that best suit the needs of every individual is a very challenging problem. Accordingly, interactive graphical and visualization techniques are suggested to increase the ability of the display to handle large numbers of results while simultaneously presenting several attributes for each Web page. In addition, query reformulation and reconstruction is usually controlled by the search engine. Consequently, the results suffer from redundancy and/or irrelevancy. Integrating the user in the process of query reformulation - by visualizing the process itself - may benefit the overall search relevance. This paper presents an interactive Visual Search Engine (the VSE) in which both processes of query reformulation and results presentation are visualized. In the user study, the effectiveness of the VSE was demonstrated when compared to Google.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWeb Data Mining and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207