MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2543408643 · doi:10.1109/iat.2005.50

Category-based Similarity Algorithm for Semantic Similarity in Multi-agent Information Sharing Systems

2006· article· en· W2543408643 on OpenAlexaff
S. Miralaei, Ali A. Ghorbani

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemantic similaritySimilarity (geometry)Computer scienceCosine similarityInformation retrievalVector space modelMatching (statistics)Similarity measureData miningArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Similarity measures are mechanisms that assign a numeric score indicating how closely two documents, or a document and a query match. Most similarity measures such as cosine measure, which treat a document as a vector of weighted keywords, consider exact matching of keywords when determining the similarity among documents and they do not consider the semantic similarity among the keywords of the documents. This paper presents a category-based similarity algorithm (CSA) to determine the semantic similarity between any two pieces of information. CSA is implemented inside the ACORN (agent-based community oriented routing network) system, which is a multi-agent system for information retrieval and provision in a community of users. CSA can also be used in any information sharing system in which the information content is represented as vectors of weighted keywords.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent TechnologySame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207