QA Sys t em Met i s Based on Semant i c Gr aph Mat chi ng
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
Abs t r act We have developed Metis, a question-answering system that finds an answer by matching a question graph with the knowledge graphs. The question graph is obtained as a result of semantic analysis of a question sentence, the knowledge graphs are similarly analyzed from knowledge sentences retrieved from a database using keywords extracted from the question sentence. In retrieving such knowledge sentences, the system searches for and collects them using Lucene, a search engine, based on search keywords extracted from the question graph. To extract the answer, Metis calculates the degrees of similarity between the question and knowledge graphs to conduct precise matching. In this matching, the system calculates the degrees of similarity, which is the relative size of the similarity co-occurrence graph to the question graphs with respect to all combinations of nodes in the knowledge graph corresponding to those in the question graph. The system then chooses the knowledge graph with the highest degree of similarity and extracts from it the portion that corresponds to the given interrogative word. The system presents this portion as the answer. Keywor ds: Question answering, Graph matching, Semantic analysis, Semantic graph,
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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