MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178198718 · doi:10.5430/air.v5n1p36

The improvement of question process method in Q&A system

2015· article· en· W2178198718 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yonghe Lu, Shuo Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational High-tech Research and Development ProgramNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceMatching (statistics)Similarity (geometry)TemplateSet (abstract data type)Word (group theory)Field (mathematics)Semantic similarityBlossom algorithmInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingAlgorithmData miningMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Life service information plays an important role in people’s life, such as weather conditions, so the study of how to get lifeservice information has important significance. This paper put forward a question processing method called “integrated semanticalgorithm” in Q&A System of life service information. The new algorithm was based on the semantic web, word order similarityalgorithm and the syntactic similarity algorithm. When matching the question templates, especially for some question templateswhich are characteristic of certain fields, the new algorithm can identify the type of questions, narrow the matching range of thequestion templates, and improve the matching accuracy. In the experiment, we chose “weather field” as the experimental subject.In the first experiment, we built the question syntactic templates and semantic web of weather, and collected 55 questions ofweather title as test set. Then we used the word similarity algorithm, the syntactic similarity algorithm and integrated semanticsimilarity algorithm to match question templates with the test question set. The experimental results show that the integratedsemantic algorithm is better than the other two algorithms in matching accuracy. In the second experiment, we randomlyselected some questions from different fields, then we used the three similarity algorithms in the first experiment to do the fielddistinguishing experiment. The experiment shows that only the integrated semantic algorithm can recognize questions of differentfields.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.398
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.121 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Intelligence ResearchSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207