geNov: A new metric for measuring novelty and relevancy in biomedical information retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For diversity and novelty evaluation in information retrieval, we expect that the novel documents are always ranked higher than the redundant ones and the relevant ones higher than the irrelevant ones. We also expect that the level of novelty and relevancy should be acknowledged. Accordingly, we expect that the evaluation algorithm would reward rankings that respect these expectations. Nevertheless, there are few research articles in the literature that study how to meet such expectations, even fewer in the field of biomedical information retrieval. In this article, we propose a new metric for novelty and relevancy evaluation in biomedical information retrieval based on an aspect‐level performance measure introduced by TREC Genomics Track with formal results to show that those expectations above can be respected under ideal conditions. The empirical evaluation indicates that the proposed metric,geNov, is greatly sensitive to the desired characteristics above, and the three parameters are highly tuneable for different evaluation preferences. By experimentally comparing with state‐of‐the‐art metrics for novelty and diversity, the proposed metric shows its advantages in recognizing the ranking quality in terms of novelty, redundancy, relevancy, and irrelevancy and in its discriminative power. Experiments reveal the proposed metric is faster to compute than state‐of‐the‐art metrics.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | medium |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".