Expanding the User’s Query to Enhance Semantic Information Retrieval Using the Reasoning Mechanism Based on Homomorphism Between Semantic Annotations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Semantic search encompasses advanced technological approaches to information discovery and retrieval, employing semantic techniques to extract information from intricately structured data sources.An effective search engine must have the ability of accessing and retrieving information of interest by employing reasoning with conceptual models.However, the structural and semantic information intrinsic in conceptual models is not readily amenable to reasoning and AI-enhanced semantic processing.Therefore, the chosen model should enable understanding the meaning of concepts and the relationships between them.Il should also carefully consider the context of the search, ultimately enhancing the accuracy of the returned results.Among the models that fulfill these objectives, conceptual graphs stand out as particularly interesting.They are built upon a robust theoretical framework that spans multiple domains, including philosophical, psychological, linguistic, and artificial intelligence disciplines.In this paper, we describe a method for semantic search driven by conceptual graph-based representation, and a powerful matching reasoning supported by a projection operation between the semantic annotations associated with the document and the submitted query.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it