Information Retrieval Based on OCR Errors in Scanned Documents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important proportion of documents are document images, i.e. scanned documents. For their retrieval, it is important to recognize their contents. Current technologies for optical character recognition (OCR) and document analysis do not handle such documents adequately because of the recognition errors. In this paper, we describe an approach that integrates the detection of errors in scanned texts without relying on a lexicon, and this detection is integrated in the research process. The proposed algorithm consists of two basic steps. In the first step, we apply editing operations on OCR words that generate a collection of error-grams and correction rules. The second step uses query terms, error-grams, and correction rules to create searchable keywords, identify appropriate matching terms, and determine the degree of relevance of retrieved document images. Algorithms has been tested on 979 document images provided by Media-team databases from Washington University, and the experimental results obtained show the effectiveness of our method and indicate improvement in comparison with the standard methods such as exact or partial matching, N-gram overlaps, and Q-gram distance.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".