MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898396042 · doi:10.1109/asonam.2018.8508612

Implicit Entity Linking Through Ad-Hoc Retrieval

2018· article· en· W2898396042 on OpenAlexaff
Hawre Hosseini, Tam T. Nguyen, Ebrahim Bagheri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEntity linkingInformation retrievalKnowledge baseSet (abstract data type)Process (computing)Representation (politics)Space (punctuation)Baseline (sea)Natural language processingWorld Wide WebProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The systematic linking of explicitly-observed phrases within a document to entities of a knowledge base has already been explored in a process known as entity linking. The objective of this paper, however, is to identify and entity link those entities that are not mentioned but are implied within a document, more specifically within a tweet. This process is referred to as implicit entity linking. Unlike prior work that build a representation for each entity based on its related content in the knowledge base, we propose to perform implicit entity linking by determining how a tweet is related to user-generated content posted online and as such indirectly perform entity linking. We formulate this problem as an ad-hoc document retrieval process where the input query is the tweet, which needs to be implicitly linked and the document space is the set of user-generated content related to the entities of the knowledge base. We systematically compare our work with the state-of-the-art baseline and show that our method is able to provide statistically significant improvements.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.011
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.289
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
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207