MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284689311 · doi:10.1145/3477495.3531986

H-ERNIE

2022· article· en· W4284689311 on OpenAlex
Xiaokai Chu, Jiashu Zhao, Lixin Zou, Dawei Yin

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 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRelevance (law)AmbiguityFocus (optics)Matching (statistics)MoresLanguage modelNatural languageInformation retrievalNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pre-trained language models (PLMs), such as BERT and ERNIE, have achieved outstanding performance in many natural language understanding tasks. Recently, PLMs-based Information Retrieval models have also been investigated and showed substantially state-of-the-art effectiveness, e.g., MORES, PROP and ColBERT. Moreover, most of the PLMs-based rankers only focus on a single level relevance matching (e.g., character-level), while ignore the other granularity information (e.g., words and phrases), which easily lead to the ambiguity of query understanding and inaccurate matching issues in web search.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.231 · 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