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 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), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.124

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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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