MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322631336 · doi:10.54097/hset.v32i.4933

The Analysis of Open Source Search Engines

2023· article· en· W4322631336 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

VenueHighlights in Science Engineering and Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen sourceComputer scienceThe InternetSearch engineDisadvantageWorld Wide WebInformation source (mathematics)Source codeInformation retrievalSoftwareOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this information era of high-speed Internet development, the volume of information has grown exponentially along with the expansion in Internet usage by the general people and the steady strengthening of business and institutional information technology. How to find the needed information quickly and accurately from the vast amount of digital information has become an urgent demand of the people of the whole country. The term "open source search engine" simply denotes that anyone may use and alter the source code as they see fit. Open source search engines provide an excellent way and material for people to learn, study and master search technology. This study aims to compare different open source search engines. In this paper compares MeiliSearch and Apache Solr; ElasticSearch and Typesense. Introduce how these engines work and the advantage and disadvantage of theses open source search engines. The section four gives a case study of Apache Lucene.

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)0.000
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 score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.018
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.282 · 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