MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092108395

Using Terminology and a Concept Hierarchy for Restricted-Domain Question-Answering

2006· article· en· W3092108395 on OpenAlexaff
Hai Doan-Nguyen, Leila Kosseim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyHierarchyComputer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)Question answeringNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsMathematicsPhilosophyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This paper discusses an important characteristic of restricteddomain question-answering (RDQA): the issue of low precision in finding good answers. We propose methods for improving precision using domain-specific terminology and concept hierarchy to rearrange the candidate list and to better characterize the question-document relevance relationship. Once this relationship has been well established, one can expect to obtain a small set of (almost) all relevant documents for a given question, and use this to guide the information retrieval engine in a two-level search strategy. The methods proposed here have been applied to a real QA system for a large telecommunication company, yielding significant improvements in precision. 1

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207