BIGFile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce BIGFile, a new fast file retrieval technique based on the Bayesian Information Gain framework. BIGFile provides interface shortcuts to assist the user in navigating to a desired target (file or folder). BIGFile's split interface combines a traditional list view with an adaptive area that displays shortcuts to the set of file paths estimated by our computationally efficient algorithm. Users can navigate the list as usual, or select any part of the paths in the adaptive area. A pilot study of 15 users informed the design of BIGFile, revealing the size and structure of their file systems and their file retrieval practices. Our simulations show that BIGFile outperforms Fitchett et al.'s AccessRank, a best-of-breed prediction algorithm. We conducted an experiment to compare BIGFile with ARFile (AccessRank instantiated in a split interface) and with a Finder-like list view as baseline. BIGFile was by far the most efficient technique (up to 44% faster than ARFile and 64% faster than Finder), and participants unanimously preferred the split interfaces to the Finder.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.088 | 0.044 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".