MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interactive IR Framework

2008· book-chapter· en· W2493631702 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iris Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Search engine indexingInformation retrievalComputer scienceCore (optical fiber)Theoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Representation and comparison are usually considered the two core processes in traditional IR. Comparison is between two representations: representation of text and representation of user need. Much of the research in IR had concentrated on indexing techniques for representing the contents of documents and retrieval techniques that compare documents to queries (Salton & McGill, 1983; van Rijsbergen, 1979). Two underlying assumptions of the traditional IR view are: (1) the information need is static and can be specified; (2) there is only one form of information-seeking behavior (Belkin, 1993).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0960.041

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorFrench-language works237,207