MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158915197 · doi:10.1145/1067268.1067274

The TREC terabyte retrieval track

2005· article· en· W2158915197 on OpenAlexaff
Charles L. A. Clarke, Nick Craswell, Ian Soboroff

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGIR Forum · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerabyteComputer scienceInformation retrievalSearch engine indexingTrack (disk drive)Context (archaeology)Automatic indexing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Terabyte Retrieval Track of the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) provides an opportunity to test retrieval techniques and evaluation methodologies in the context of a terabyte-scale corpus. Given the size of the corpus, the track also provides a vehicle for participants to investigate query and indexing speeds. This brief summary outlines track activities to date and previews our plans for TREC 2005. For complete information, the reader should consult the full version of this report [1].

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1010.117

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGIR ForumSame topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207