Rules still work for Open Information Extraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open information extraction (OIE) aims to extract surface relations and their corresponding arguments from natural language text, irrespective of domain. This paper presents an innovative OIE model, APRCOIE, tailored for Chinese text. Diverging from previous models, our model generates extraction patterns autonomously. The model defines a new pattern form for Chinese OIE and proposes an automated pattern generation methodology. In that way, the model can handle a wide array of complex and diverse Chinese grammatical phenomena. We design a preliminary filter based on tensor computing to conduct the extraction procedure efficiently. To train the model, we manually annotated a large-scale Chinese OIE dataset. In the comparative evaluation, we demonstrate that APRCOIE outperforms state-of-the-art Chinese OIE models and significantly expands the boundaries of achievable OIE performance. The code of APRCOIE and the annotated dataset are released on GitHub (https://github.com/jialin666/APRCOIE_v1)
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.018 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".