MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561075173 · doi:10.5815/ijitcs.2016.12.06

Journey of Web Search Engines: Milestones, Challenges & Innovations

2016· article· en· W2561075173 on OpenAlexaff
Mamta Kathuria, C. K. Nagpal, Neelam Duhan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExpert finding and Q&A systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)Search engine indexingWorld Wide WebSearch engineBig dataDomain (mathematical analysis)Data mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Past few decades have witnessed an informat ion big bang in the form of World Wide Web leading to gigantic repository of heterogeneous data. A humble journey that started with the network connection between few co mputers at ARPANET p roject has reached to a level wherein almost all the co mputers and other communication devices of the world have joined together to form a huge global in formation network that makes availab le most of the information related to every possible heterogeneous domain. Not only the managing and indexing of th is repository is a big concern but to provide a quick answer to the user's query is also of critical importance. A mazingly, rather miraculously, the task is being done quite efficiently by the current web search engines. This miracle has been possible due to a series of mathematical and technological innovations continuously being carried out in the area of search techniques. This paper takes an overview of search engine evolution from primitive to the present.

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)0.009
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0110.020
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Information Technology and Computer ScienceSame topicExpert finding and Q&A systemsFrench-language works237,207