MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296338095 · doi:10.1109/ichi.2015.98

Golden Retriever: Question Retrieval System

2015· article· en· W2296338095 on OpenAlexaff
Hamman Samuel, Miyoung Kim, Sankalp Prabhakar, Mohomed Shazan, Mohomed Shazan Mohomed Jabbar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExpert finding and Q&A systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsComputer scienceInformation retrievalSemantic similarityRelevance (law)Search engine indexingSimilarity (geometry)Semantics (computer science)AnalyticsSemantic computingProbabilistic latent semantic analysisData scienceArtificial intelligenceSemantic Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Duplicate questions get posted on Q&A online forums because users may not be aware of similar questions. Our proposed system, Golden Retriever, can recommend existing questions that are semantically related to incoming questions. Compared with other existing techniques such as Latent Semantic Indexing, Language Model and Semantic Similarity, our approach shows good results for the ICHI Healthcare Data Analytics Challenge dataset using normalized TF-IDF, relevance heuristics, and semantic relatedness.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExpert finding and Q&A systemsFrench-language works237,207