MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153245512 · doi:10.1109/icci.1993.315357

Pattern matching for case analysis: a computational definition of closeness

2002· article· en· W2153245512 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvain Delisle, Terry Copeck, Stanisław Szpakowicz, Ken Barker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClosenessComputer scienceSemantic similaritySentenceNatural language processingContext (archaeology)Similarity (geometry)Matching (statistics)Metric (unit)Artificial intelligencePattern matchingSemantics (computer science)Meaning (existential)Information retrievalMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proposes a conceptually and technically neat method to identify known semantic patterns close to a novel pattern. This occurs in the context of a system to acquire knowledge incrementally from systematically processed expository technical text. This semi-automatic system requires the user to respond to specific multiple-choice questions about the current sentence. The questions are prepared from linguistic elements previously encountered in the text similar to elements in the new sentence. We present a metric to characterize the similarity between semantic case patterns. The computation is based on syntactic indicators of semantic relations and is defined in terms of symbolic pattern matching.>

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0090.021
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207