MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188957661

Linguistic Resources for 2011 Knowledge Base Population Evaluation.

2011· article· en· W2188957661 on OpenAlex
Xuansong Li, Joe Ellis, Kira Griffitt, Stephanie Strassel, Robert G. Parker, Jonathan Wright

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 · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNISTComputer scienceAnnotationKnowledge baseInformation extractionEntity linkingResource (disambiguation)PopulationInformation retrievalNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceData scienceWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Knowledge Base Population (KBP) is an evaluation track of the Text Analysis Conference (TAC) workshop series organized by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The KBP evaluation includes two tasks that target information extraction and question answering technologies: Entity Linking and Slot Filling. Cross-lingual Entity Linking and Temporal Slot Filling were introduced in 2011 to evaluate systems’ abilities to recognize multilingual and temporal information. Linguistic Data Consortium (LDC) supports the TAC KBP evaluation by producing linguistic resources including data, annotations, system assessment, tools and specifications. This paper describes the resource creation efforts in support of KBP 2011, with an emphasis on annotation and assessment procedures and methodologies.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.250 · 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