A System for Efficient High-Recall Retrieval
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of high-recall information retrieval (HRIR) is to find all or nearly all relevant documents for a search topic. In this paper, we present the design of our system that affords efficient high-recall retrieval. HRIR systems commonly rely on iterative relevance feedback. Our system uses a state-of-the-art implementation of continuous active learning (CAL), and is designed to allow other feedback systems to be attached with little work. Our system allows users to judge documents as fast as possible with no perceptible interface lag. We also support the integration of a search engine for users who would like to interactively search and judge documents. In addition to detailing the design of our system, we report on user feedback collected as part of a 50 participants user study. While we have found that users find the most relevant documents when we restrict user interaction, a majority of participants prefer having flexibility in user interaction. Our work has implications on how to build effective assessment systems and what features of the system are believed to be useful by users.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it