MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W28026516

Sparse Matrix Factorization: Applications to Latent Semantic Indexing

2009· article· en· W28026516 on OpenAlexaff
Erin Moulding, April Kontostathis, Raymond J. Spiteri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingular value decompositionMatrix decompositionComputer scienceRanking (information retrieval)Sparse matrixLatent semantic analysisSelection (genetic algorithm)Search engine indexingColumn (typography)FactorizationInformation retrievalTask (project management)Matrix (chemical analysis)Data miningArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the use of Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) and some of its variants for the TREC Legal batch task. Both folding-in and Essential Dimensions of LSI (EDLSI) appeared as if they might be successful for recall-focused retrieval on a collection of this size. Furthermore, we developed a new LSI technique, one which replaces the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) with another technique for matrix factorization, the sparse column-row approximation (SCRA). We were able to conclude that all three LSI techniques have similar performance. Although our 2009 results showed significant improvement when compared to our 2008 results, the use of a better method for selection of the parameter K, which is the ranking that results in the best balance between precision and recall, appears to have provided the most benefit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.253 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207