MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409561214 · doi:10.1109/ieeedata.2025.3562173

Descriptor: Open-Domain Long-Form Context-Aware Question-Answering Dataset (DragonVerseQA)

2025· article· en· W4409561214 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE data descriptions. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOpen domainQuestion answeringComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Information retrievalDomain (mathematical analysis)Closed-ended questionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsGeographyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes an open-domain and long-form Over-The-Top (OTT) Question-Answering (QA) dataset, DragonVerseQA, specifically oriented to the fantasy universe of “House of the Dragon” and “Game Of Thrones” TV series. Most existing QA datasets focus on short, fact-based answers sourced almost solely from Wikipedia articles, devoid of depth and contextual richness for sophisticated narrative understanding. The curated dataset combines full episode summaries sourced from HBO and fandom wiki websites, user reviews from sources like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, and high-quality, open-domain, legally admissible sources, and structured data from repositories like WikiData into one dataset. The dataset provides a multi-dimensional context, reflecting complex character dynamics and plot developments from these varied sources. The comprehensive insights from the long-form answers generated from this enriched context make this dataset valuable for improving conversational AI, narrative analysis, sentiment analysis, summarization techniques, and relation extraction. A comparative analysis with state-of-the-art QA datasets such as SQuAD 2.0, TriviaQA, and Natural Questions brings to light the unique advantages of our dataset in terms of contextual complexity and answer length. Detailed reviews add layers to audience sentiment and narrative interpretation, raising the bar for domain-specific QA with a new quality benchmark. Our work also allows a deeper understanding of narrative-focused content and opens the door to more knowledgeable and creative AI-driven interactions within digital media environments.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0080.003
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.252 · 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