MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022461306

Proceedings of the 9th annual ACM international workshop on Web information and data management

2007· article· en· W3022461306 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Irini Fundulaki, Neoklis Polyzotis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceChinaNinthComputer scienceScheduleMetadataData managementWorld Wide WebDatabasePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ACM CIKM07 Workshop on Information and Management (WIDM 2007) is the ninth in a series of workshops on Information and Management held in conjunction with the International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM). The objective of the workshop is to bring together researchers, industrial practitioners, and developers to study how information can be extracted, stored, analyzed, and processed to provide useful knowledge to the end users for various advanced database applications. We hope that these proceedings will serve as a valuable reference for all experts in the field. The call for papers resulted in the submission of 80 papers from 32 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom and the United States. Starting from 2005, the workshop has a one-day schedule. All papers were thoroughly reviewed by the program committee and external reviewers. This year, the program committee accepted 20 papers, resulting in a competitive 25% acceptance rate. The 20 accepted papers were divided into five sessions: XML and Semi-Structured Data, P2P and System Design Issues, Personalization, Mining Knowledge from Data and Web Metadata and Search.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207