MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245584151 · doi:10.1145/564437.564438

Using self-supervised word segmentation in Chinese information retrieval

2002· article· en· W4245584151 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 25th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval - SIGIR '02 · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCharacter (mathematics)Word (group theory)Text segmentationNatural language processingSegmentationPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a self-supervised word-segmentation technique for Chinese information retrieval. This method combines the advantages of traditional dictionary based approaches with character based approaches, while overcoming many of their shortcomings. Experiments on TREC data show comparable performance to both the dictionary based and the character based approaches. However, our method is language independent and unsupervised, which provides a promising avenue for constructing accurate multilingual information retrieval systems that are flexible and adaptive.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.008
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.251 · 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