MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988314392 · doi:10.22148/16.049

A Shared Task for the Digital Humanities Chapter 2: Evaluating Annotation Guidelines

2019· article· en· W2988314392 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Evelyn Gius, Nils Reiter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cultural Analytics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineAnnotationTask (project management)Section (typography)Computer scienceData scienceArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this section, we will discuss our idea of guideline evaluation and the underlying considerations. Evaluating annotation guidelines in this way is a fairly new endeavor, and we have developed the evaluation setup from the ground up. Although we do not claim our choices to be universally valid or applicable, we believe that this approach to guideline evaluation is relevant for similar settings and can be adapted to projects that might have other preferences and priorities.

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.189
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.189
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cultural AnalyticsSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207