MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188957661

Linguistic Resources for 2011 Knowledge Base Population Evaluation.

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

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.

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.026

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

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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory and applications of categoriesSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207