An Annotated Corpus of Webtables for Information Extraction Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information Extraction is a well-researched area of Natural Language Processing with applications in web search and question answering concerned with identifying entities and relationships between them as expressed in a given context, usually a sentence of a paragraph of running text. Given the importance of the task, several datasets and benchmarks have been curated over the years. However, focusing on running text alone leaves out tables which are common in many structured documents and in which pairs of entities also co-occur in context (e.g., the same row of the table). While there are recent papers on relation extraction from tables in the literature, their experimental evaluations have been on ad-hoc datasets for the lack of a standard benchmark. This paper helps close that gap. We introduce an annotation framework and a dataset of 217,834 tables from Wikipedia which are annotated with 28 relations, using both classifiers and carefully designed queries over a reference knowledge graph. Binary classifiers are then applied to the resulting dataset to remove false positives, resulting in an average annotation accuracy of 94%. The resulting dataset is the first of its kind to be made publicly available.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".