MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293863377 · doi:10.1109/siu55565.2022.9864859

Improving Keyword Search in Sign Language using Similarity Models

2022· article· en· W4293863377 on OpenAlex
Mansur Yesilbursa, Murat Saraçlar

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

Venue2022 30th Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference (SIU) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHand Gesture Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCosine similaritySimilarity (geometry)Sign (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceNatural language processingWord (group theory)Language modelPhoenixInformation retrievalPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although it is a well-established research subject for domains like speech processing and text analysis, keyword search studies for sign language has not attracted enough attention from the community. In this paper, we explain the components of the previously proposed keyword search system. We demonstrate that the existing model can also be trained with similarity based methods using cosine and triplet losses. We show that fusion of existing models with similarity based models improves the retrieval performance. All experiments are conducted on RWTH-PHOENIX-Weather 2014T dataset and mean Average Precision scores are reported.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.236 · 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