MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015985000 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v10n3p219

Lexical Ambiguity in Arabic Information Retrieval: The Case of Six Web-Based Search Engines

2020· article· en· W3015985000 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdulfattah Omar, Mohammed Aldawsari

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPrince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University
KeywordsAmbiguityComputer scienceNatural language processingInformation retrievalArabicIntelligibility (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, both research and industry have shown an increasing interest in developing reliable information retrieval (IR) systems that can effectively address the growing demands of users worldwide. In spite of the relative success of IR systems in addressing the needs of users and even adapting to their environments, many problems remain unresolved. One main problem is lexical ambiguity which has negative impacts on the performance and reliability of IR systems. To date, lexical ambiguity has been one of the most frequently reported problems in the Arabic IR systems despite the development of different word sense disambiguation (WSD) techniques. This is largely attributed to the limitations of such techniques in addressing the issue of linguistic peculiarities. Hence, this study addresses these limitations by exploring the reasons for lexical ambiguity in IR applications in Arabic as one step towards reliable and practical solutions. For this purpose, the performances of six search engines Google, Bing, Baidu, Yahoo, Yandex, and Ask are evaluated. Results indicate that lexical ambiguities in Arabic IR applications are mainly due to the unique morphological and orthographic system of the Arabic language, in addition to its diglossia and the multiple colloquial dialects where sometimes mutual intelligibility is not achieved. For better disambiguation and IR performances in Arabic, this study proposes that clustering models based on supervised machine learning theory should be trained to address the morphological diversity of Arabic and its unique orthographic system. Search engines should also be adapted to the geographic location of the users in order to address the issue of vernacular dialects of Arabic. They should also be trained to automatically identify the different dialects. Finally, search engines should consider all varieties of Arabic and be able to interpret the queries regardless of the particular language adopted by the user.

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)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorFrench-language works237,207