A Preference Judgment Tool for Authoritative Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preference judgments have been established as an effective method for offline evaluation of information retrieval systems with advantages to graded or binary relevance judgments. Graded judgments assign each document a pre-defined grade level, while preference judgments involve assessing a pair of items presented side by side and indicating which is better. However, leveraging preference judgments may require a more extensive number of judgments, and there are limitations in terms of evaluation measures. In this study, we present a new preference judgment tool called JUDGO, designed for expert assessors and researchers. The tool is supported by a new heap-like preference judgment algorithm that assumes transitivity and allows for ties. An earlier version of the tool was employed by NIST to determine up to the top-10 best items for each of the 38 topics for the TREC 2022 Health Misinformation track, with over 2,200 judgments collected. The current version has been applied in a separate research study to collect almost 10,000 judgments, with multiple assessors completing each topic. The code and resources are available at https://judgo-system.github.io.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".