Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reading is a common everyday activity for most of us. In this article, we examine the potential for using Wikipedia to fill in the gaps in one's own knowledge that may be encountered while reading. If gaps are encountered frequently while reading, then this may detract from the reader's final understanding of the given document. Our goal is to increase access to explanatory text for readers by retrieving a single Wikipedia article that is related to a text passage that has been highlighted. This approach differs from traditional search methods where the users formulate search queries and review lists of possibly relevant results. This explicit search activity can be disruptive to reading. Our approach is to minimize the user interaction involved in finding related information by removing explicit query formulation and providing a single relevant result. To evaluate the feasibility of this approach, we first examined the effectiveness of three contextual algorithms for retrieval. To evaluate the effectiveness for readers, we then developed a functional prototype that uses the text of the abstract being read as context and retrieves a single relevant Wikipedia article in response to a passage the user has highlighted. We conducted a small user study where participants were allowed to use the prototype while reading abstracts. The results from this initial study indicate that users found the prototype easy to use and that using the prototype significantly improved their stated understanding and confidence in that understanding of the academic abstracts they read.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".