MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Future of Document Retrieval: Harnessing the Power of OpenAI and AWS Kendra

2023· article· en· W4391343109 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Vimalkumar Joshi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsSeneca Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebInformation retrievalTransformative learningAdaptability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an era inundated with data, the quest for efficient and accurate information retrieval has become paramount for organizations. Traditional enterprise search methodologies, while foundational, grapple with challenges ranging from relevance issues to the complexities of everevolving linguistic nuances. This research delves into a transformative approach to enterprise search by integrating OpenAI's Foundation Model, a state-of-the-art AI model renowned for its profound linguistic understanding, with Amazon Web Services' Kendra, a machine learning-powered search platform. Our integrated system, showcased through a meticulously designed architecture, demonstrates a remarkable <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$92 \%$</tex> accuracy in document retrieval, outshining the <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$78{{\% }}$</tex> achieved by traditional methods. Furthermore, user feedback sessions accentuated the system's adeptness in natural language query processing and the heightened relevance of search results. This paper not only presents the fruits of melding advanced AI with robust search platforms but also paves the way for the future of intelligent enterprise search, emphasizing adaptability, continuous learning, and the promise of a search realm that's not just efficient but profoundly insightful.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207