An Exploratory Study into the Application and Interpretation of Frequency Tables Relative to a Search Retrieval Set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the 1994 CAIS Conference: The Information Industry in Transition McGill University, Montreal, Quebec. May 25 - 27, 1994.Hidreth (1989:22) observed that subject searchers likely require a more interactive subject searching approach which allows for term and document appraisal and relevance feedback during the search process. In order to assess aspects of a user's evaluative skills, and of relevance feedback, a laboratory test was initiated to examine: 1) a procedure for evaluating a retrieved set: 2) a mechanism - a frequency table - to be used for that evaluation; and 3) the relationship between the evaluation procedure and the relevance feedback mechanism. Contrary to expectations that participants would use the frequency distribution tables to assist in evaluating a retrieved set, tables were used, instead, to modify the subsequent search strategy, to restructure the query. This suggests that frequency distribution tables may have some utility or value as interactive navigational aids to searchers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".