MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A oclusão pode facilitar a compreensão humana? Avaliação de explicabilidade no reconhecimento de entidades nomeadas

2024· article· pt· W4400776163 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Augusto Aguiar Gomes, Leonidas J. F. Braga, Marcos P. C. Azevedo, Gabriel Assunção, A. A. S. CARVALHO, Michele A. Brandão, Daniel H. Dalip, Flávio Cardeal Pádua

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsBlutip (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Técnicas de Explicabilidade são métodos que auxiliam usuários a entender os resultados de um modelo de aprendizado de máquina. Nesse contexto, este trabalho investiga se a técnica de explicabilidade de Oclusão consegue gerar respostas similares às esperadas por humanos na classificação de palavras para o Reconhecimento de Entidades Nomeadas. Para isso, utilizou-se uma LSTM bidirecional e o conjunto de dados CoNLL 2003, bem como foi utilizado a anotação manual de 849 sentenças criando-se, assim, uma base de dados de referência. Os resultados mostram que a Oclusão é capaz de indicar pelo menos uma palavra relevante e compatível com a compreensão humana.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.018

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.289 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207