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 OpenAlex
Yonghe Lu, Shuo Wang

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.398
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