MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2475126544 · doi:10.1145/2911451.2911463

A Platform for Streaming Push Notifications to Mobile Assessors

2016· article· en· W2475126544 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam Roegiest, Luchen Tan, Jimmy Lin, Charles L. A. Clarke

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAutomatic summarizationComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPush technologyRelevance (law)Social mediaSet (abstract data type)Mobile deviceMultimediaTask (project management)CrowdsourcingInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an assessment platform for gathering online relevance judgments for mobile push notifications that will be deployed in the newly-created TREC 2016 Real-Time Summarization (RTS) track. There is emerging interest in building systems that filter social media streams such as tweets to identify interesting and novel content in real time, putatively for delivery to users' mobile phones. In our evaluation design, all participants subscribe to the Twitter streaming API to identify relevant tweets with respect to a set of interest profiles. As the systems generate results, they are pushed in real time to our evaluation broker via a REST API. The broker then "routes" the tweets to assessors who have installed a custom app on their mobile phones. We detail the design of this platform and discuss a number of challenges that need to be tackled in this type of "Living Labs" setup. It is our goal that such an evaluation design will mitigate any issues that have arisen in traditional batch-style evaluations of this type of task.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.006

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 head0.388
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.097 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorFrench-language works237,207