TRIVIR: A Visualization System to Support Document Retrieval with High Recall
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A high recall problem in document retrieval is described by scenarios in which one wants to ensure that, given one (or multiple) query document(s), (nearly) all relevant related documents are retrieved, with minimum human effort. The problem may be expressed as a document similarity search: a user picks an example document (or multiple ones), and an automatic system recovers similar ones from a collection. This problem is often handled with a so-called Continuous Active Learning strategy: given the initial query, which is a document described by a set of relevant terms, a learning method returns the most-likely relevant documents (e.g., the most similar) to the reviewer in batches, the reviewer labels each document as relevant/not relevant and this information is fed back into the learning algorithm, which uses it to refine its predictions. This iterative process goes on until some quality condition is satisfied, which might demand high human effort, since documents are displayed as ranked lists and need to be labeled individually, and impact negatively the convergence of the learning algorithm. Besides, the vocabulary mismatch issue, i.e., when distinct terminologies are employed to describe semantically related or equivalent concepts, can impair recall capability.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it