MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395887233

University of Waterloo at TREC 2015 Microblog Track

2015· article· en· W2395887233 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueText REtrieval Conference · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMicrobloggingExploitSocial mediaInformation retrievalRelevance (law)Word (group theory)Query expansionWorld Wide WebMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a topic with title, narrative and description, we start by building a language model for the topic. The top 1000 tweets were retrieved from Twitter commercial search engine by applying the title of the topic as a query. We exploit pseudo relevance feedback technologies to estimate probability distributions of each term in the topic, then comparing these probabilities with a background distribution model. We select the highest dierent terms as our expanded query terms. We then generate a vector for each topic, the features of the vector are non-stop word title terms, selected narrative terms and query expansion terms. Dierent weights are assigned to the dierent types of terms. Since we are allowed to deliver at most 10 tweets every day, and the latency time can not exceed 100 minutes, we solve the tweet notication scenario as a multiple-choice secretary problem. Two dierent solutions were tested.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.226 · 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