MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2583976214 · doi:10.1145/3018661.3018692

Document Retrieval Model Through Semantic Linking

2017· article· en· W2583976214 on OpenAlexaff
Faezeh Ensan, Ebrahim Bagheri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation retrievalExplicit semantic analysisComplement (music)GraphSemantic similarityProbabilistic logicNatural language processingSemantic computingArtificial intelligenceSemantic technologyTheoretical computer scienceSemantic Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the task of document retrieval based on the degree of document relatedness to the meanings of a query by presenting a semantic-enabled language model. Our model relies on the use of semantic linking systems for forming a graph representation of documents and queries, where nodes represent concepts extracted from documents and edges represent semantic relatedness between concepts. Based on this graph, our model adopts a probabilistic reasoning model for calculating the conditional probability of a query concept given values assigned to document concepts. We present an integration framework for interpolating other retrieval systems with the presented model in this paper. Our empirical experiments on a number of TREC collections show that the semantic retrieval has a synergetic impact on the results obtained through state of the art keyword-based approaches, and the consideration of semantic information obtained from entity linking on queries and documents can complement and enhance the performance of other retrieval models.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
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

Citations83
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207