Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information retrieval systems retrieves relevant documents based on a query submitted by the user. The documents are initially indexed and the words in the documents are assigned weights using a weighting technique called TFIDF which is the product of Term Frequency (TF) and Inverse Document Frequency (IDF). TF represents the number of occurrences of a term in a document. IDF measures whether the term is common or rare across all documents. It is computed by dividing the total number of documents in the system by the number of documents containing the term and then computing the logarithm of the quotient. By default, we use base 10 to calculate the logarithm. In this paper, we are going to test this weighting technique by using a range of log bases from 0.1 to 100.0 to calculate the IDF. Testing different log bases for vector model weighting technique is to highlight the importance of understanding the performance of the system at different weighting values. We use the documents of MED, CRAN, NPL, LISA, and CISI test collections that scientists assembled explicitly for experiments in data information retrieval systems.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".