Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ranking problems are ubiquitous and occur in a variety of domains that include social choice, information retrieval, computational biology and many others. Recent advancements in information technology have opened new data processing possibilities and significantly increased the complexity of computationally feasible methods. Through these advancements ranking models are now beginning to be applied to many new and diverse problems. Across these problems data, which ranges from gene expressions to images and web-documents, has vastly different properties and is often not human generated. This makes it challenging to apply many of the existing models for ranking which primarily originate in social choice and are typically designed for human generated preference data. As the field continues to evolve a new trend has recently emerged where machine learning methods are being used to automatically learn the ranking models. While these methods typically lack the theoretical support of the social choice models they often show excellent empirical performance and are able to handle large and diverse data placing virtually no restrictions on the data type. These model have now been successfully applied to many diverse ranking problems including image retrieval, protein selection, machine translation and many others. Inspired by these promising results the work presented in this thesis aims to advance machine methods for ranking and develop new techniques to allow effective modeling of existing and future problems. The presented work concentrates on three different but related domains: information retrieval, preference aggregation and collaborative filtering. In each domain we develop new models together with learning and inference methods and empirically verify our models on real-life data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".