One Stop Shop for Question-Answering Dataset Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we offer a new visualization tool -- Dataset Statistical View (DSV), to lower the barrier of research entry by providing easy access to the question-answering (QA) datasets that researchers can build their work upon. Our target users are new researchers to the QA domain with no prior knowledge nor programming skills. The system is populated with multiple QA datasets, which covers a wide range of QA tasks. It allows researchers to explore and compare existing QA datasets at a one-stop website. The system shows statistical graphs for each QA dataset to offer an overview and a visual comparison between datasets. Although this paper focuses mainly at the syntactic level comparison, integrating bias and semantic level analysis is our ongoing work. We believe our DSV system is a valuable contribution to the advancement of the QA field, as it provides a solid starting point for new researchers and practitioners. An overview of the framework is demonstrated in this paper and the introduction of the application system is available at https://cnchuy.github.io/images/demo.mp4.
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".