MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhancing Context-Aware Search with Retrieval-Augmented Generation

2025· preprint· en· W4407963315 on OpenAlexaff
Rahul Shetty

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Computer scienceInformation retrievalGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital content has grown exponentially, requiring efficient and context-aware information retrieval systems. Search methods which utilize key word based functions, such as BM25, rely on lexical matching but often fail to capture semantic relationships. Using dense vector embeddings models, Small Language Models (SLMs) can improve retrieval accuracy, however Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) incorporates the concept of contextual ranking through generative artificial intelligence to further enhance search relevance. An experiment on a single document corpus and a cryptography-related query evaluates BM25, SLM embeddings, and SLM + RAG for document retrieval. Based on experimental results, BM25 achieves a moderate relevance score of 0.500, retrieving documents based on exact matches but lacking contextual understanding. As SLM embeddings identify semantically similar concepts, they increase recall for queries with conceptual variations and a relevance score 0.7668. SLM + RAG outperforms both approaches' relevance score 0.9202, retrieving the most relevant document with accuracy and contextually enriched responses. A hybrid retrieval model that combines dense embeddings and generative ranking improves search quality substantially. This exploratory study has multiple implications for information retrieval and including the need for scalable multi-document retrieval, FAISS/DPR integration for efficient vector searches, and domain-specific fine-tuning of SLMs. Using this approach, enterprises can achieve faster, more accurate, and contextually aware document retrieval by combining SLMs and RAG methods. Hybrid approaches could be explored in large-scale retrieval settings, with stable workflow integration processes across diverse industries like legal research, healthcare, government, and finance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207