MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556044468 · doi:10.5430/air.v6n1p59

Re-ranking Google search returned web documents using document classification scores

2016· article· en· W2556044468 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation retrievalRanking (information retrieval)Computer scienceSearch engineWorld Wide WebWeb pageLearning to rankWeb search engineWeb search query

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Web document ranking is a very challenging issue for search engines because about 80% of the search engine users are usuallyinterested in the top three returned search results only. This paper proposes an effective method for re-ranking Google searchreturned web documents/pages based on document classification. This method downgrades some web documents/pages thathave lower classification scores or been classified into categories irrelevant to the query. The experimental results show thatthe re-ranking of Google search returned web documents using document classification scores can significantly improve theranking performance in terms of the integrated evaluation result using three criteria: MAP, nDCG, and P@20. It is evident thatthe proposed re-ranking method can meet the user’s information need better.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.134 · 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