Generalized features: their application to classification
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Classification learning algorithms in general, and text classification methods in particular, tend to focus on features of individual training examples, rather than on the relationships between the examples. However, in many situations a set of items contains more information than just feature values of individual items. For example, taking into account the articles that are cited by or cite an article in question would increase our chances of correct classification. We propose to recognize and put in use generalized features (or set features), which describe a training example, but depend on the dataset as a whole, with the goal of achieving better classification accuracy. Although the idea of generalized features is consistent with the objectives of relational learning (ILP), we feel that instead of using the computationally heavy and conceptually general ILP methods, there may be a benefit in looking for approaches that use specific relations between texts, and in particular, between emails. Generalized features are the way to capture the information that lies beyond a particular item, the information that combines the dataset in some sort of structure. Different datasets have different structures, but we could guess what kind of information would be useful for classification. It is similar to the process of choosing relevant features. For example, we can guess that the references are relevant to the topic of an article, but the relative length is not. There have been some attempts to include additional information about a dataset to the standard classification process based on plain features. One example is using references to classify technical articles and hyperlinks to classify web pages. This research shows that some links could be confusing while others are very helpful. Another example is character recognition. The recognition process can be based not only on the shape of a character, but also on preceding characters and even preceding words. Our attention is focused on the email classification problem. Nowadays, when a typical user receives about 4050 email messages daily, there is a great need in automatic classification systems that could sort, archive, and filter messages accurately. Typically, people work with emails as with general texts and base the classification decisions on the words that appear in the header and in the body of an
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle