MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153207410 · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979167

Review spotlight

2011· article· en· W2153207410 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
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)AdjectiveQuality (philosophy)World Wide WebNounInformation retrievalNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many people read online reviews written by other users to learn more about a product or venue. However, the overwhelming amount of user-generated reviews and variance in length, detail and quality across the reviews make it difficult to glean useful information. In this paper, we present the iterative design of our system, called Review Spotlight. It provides a brief overview of reviews using adjective-noun word pairs, and allows the user to quickly explore the reviews in greater detail. Through a laboratory user study which required participants to perform decision making tasks, we showed that participants could form detailed impressions about restaurants and decide between two options significantly faster with Review Spotlight than with traditional review webpages.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations83
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207