MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188437695

LCC Approaches to Knowledge Base Population at TAC 2010.

2010· article· en· W2188437695 on OpenAlex

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

VenueTheory and applications of categories · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurpriseKnowledge baseComputer scienceTask (project management)Context (archaeology)PopulationBase (topology)Relation (database)Track (disk drive)Artificial intelligenceData miningEngineeringMathematicsGeographySystems engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Knowledge Base Population (KBP) track at the Text Analysis Conference 2010 marks the second year of this important information extractionevaluation. Thispaperdescribesthe design and implementation of LCC’s systems which participated in the tasks of Entity Linking, Slot Filling, and the new task of Surprise Slot Filling. For the entitylinkingtask, ourtop score was achieved through a robust context modeling approach which incorporates topical evidence. For slot filling, we used the output of the entity linking system together with a combination of different types of relation extractors. For surprise slot filling, our customizableextractionsystem was extremely useful due to the time sensitive nature of the task.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.213 · 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