MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588863515 · doi:10.29173/cais505

Assessing Intra and Extra Web-based Automatic Indexing Tools

2013· article· en· W2588863515 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Elaine G. Toms, Toby Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsCentre de Développement du Porc du QuébecUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSearch engine indexingExtractorInformation retrievalComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)Automatic indexingWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research we compared two types of indexing tools: one based on the content of a document, an intra-indexer (Extractor), and one based on a document's external representation - the nodes to which it is linked (Topic). This paper summarizes the results of a pilot study and thus must be cautiously interpreted.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0080.032
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.244 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSISame topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207