MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403963403

University of Waterloo at the TREC 2013 Temporal Summarization Track.

2013· article· en· W2403963403 on OpenAlexaff
Gaurav Baruah, Rakesh Guttikonda, Adam Roegiest, Olga Vechtomova

Bibliographic record

VenueText REtrieval Conference · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomatic summarizationComputer scienceCosine similarityRanking (information retrieval)Relevance (law)Information retrievalSimilarity (geometry)Metric (unit)Latency (audio)Set (abstract data type)Task (project management)Relevance feedbackArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Image retrieval
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The University of Waterloo participated in the Temporal Summarization Track at TREC 2013 and submitted 8 runs for the Sequential Update Summarization Task. Methods like query likelihood ranking, pseudo relevance feedback, BM25 and cosine similarity, as well as, algorithms for passage retrieval and term expansion using distributional similarity to a set of seed words, were used for returning relevant sentences from a stream of time-ordered documents. Higher scores relative to the average score for all submitted runs were achieved on the Latency Comprehensiveness Metric (returning as many nuggets as possible), however, submitted runs performed poorly on the Expected Latency Gain Metric (speediness of updates).

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.020

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueText REtrieval ConferenceSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207