MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7014244564

Paikallisten suurien kielimallinen hyödyntäminen liiketoiminnan sovelluksissa

2024· other· en· W7014244564 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAaltodoc (Aalto University) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityRelevance (law)Language modelContext (archaeology)InferenceQuantization (signal processing)Data modeling
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained popularity in various use cases due to their capabilities. Currently third party services are commonly used, but these solutions contain drawbacks, such as data privacy concerns. Due to this, the interest for local solutions has increased causing international companies to release their own models, which are comparable to closed solutions. This thesis explores how local large language models can be utilized for business applications. The goal of this thesis is to form a comprehensive view of the state of LLMs, including their capabilities and limitations by researching them from various sources. Additionally, experiments are conducted to analyze the inference requirements, assess the impact of quantization on them, evaluate the language capabilities of the models and determine their capability to follow instructions and generate coherent output. The experiments include applying Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) using internal company data and fine-tuning a model to improve language capabilities with limited computational resources. As a part of research, a customized method was created and is used to evaluate the effectiveness of retrieval augmented generation. This is done by automatically creating a question-answer dataset with over a thousand entries. The dataset can be used by an LLM to evaluate the factuality and relevance of the context or the model output. The result of the thesis is a comprehensive study of current LLMs, tools and methods, which can be applied as a foundation to build new products in the future. The results indicate that LLMs are suitable for many use cases, although they do have limitations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.021

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueAaltodoc (Aalto University)French-language works237,207