Synonym-Based Expansion and Boosting-Based Re-Ranking: A Two-phase Approach for Genomic Information Retrieval.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe in this paper the design and evaluation of the system built at Simon Fraser University for the TREC 2005 adhoc retrieval task in the Genomics track. The main approach taken in our system was to expand synonyms by exploiting a fusion of a set of biomedical and general ontology sources, and apply machine learning and natural language processing techniques to re-rank retrieved documents. In our system, we integrated EntrezGene, HUGO, Eugenes, ARGH, GO, MeSH, UMLSKS and WordNet into a large reference database and then used a conventional Information Retrieval (IR) toolkit, the Lemur toolkit (Lemur, 2005), to build an IR system. In the postprocessing phase, we applied a boosting algorithm (Kudo and Matsumoto, 2004) that captured natural language substructures embedded in texts to re-rank the retrieved documents. Experimental results show that the boosting algorithm worked well in cases where a conventional IR system performs poorly, but this re-ranking approach was not robust enough when applied to broad coverage task typically associated with IR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".