MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187127363

Linguistic Resources for 2012 Knowledge Base Population Evaluations

2012· article· en· W2187127363 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joe Ellis, Jeremy Getman, Justin L. Mott, Xuansong Li, Kira Griffitt, Stephanie Strassel, Jonathan Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and applications of categories · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNISTComputer scienceAnnotationKnowledge baseSelection (genetic algorithm)PopulationInformation extractionResource (disambiguation)Entity linkingTrack (disk drive)Information retrievalBase (topology)Natural language processingData scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge Base Population (KBP) is an evaluation track of the Text Analysis Conference (TAC), a workshop series organized by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In 2013, the KBP evaluations included five tasks targeting information extraction and question answering technologies: Entity Linking, Slot Filling, Temporal Slot Filling, Sentiment Slot Filling, and Cold Start. The Sentiment and Temporal Slot Filling tasks were introduced in 2013 in an effort to move the KBP challenges into new domains, specifically beliefs and events. Linguistic Data Consortium (LDC) has supported the TAC KBP evaluation since 2009, each year producing new linguistic resources including data, annotations, system assessments, tools and specifications. This paper describes the resource creation efforts in support of TAC KBP 2013, with an emphasis on procedures and methodologies for query selection, annotation, and assessment.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory and applications of categoriesSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207