MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W19132006 · doi:10.1038/embor.2008.243

Harnessing Unlabeled Examples through Iterative Application of Dynamic Markov Modeling

2006· article· en· W19132006 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon V. Cormack

Bibliographic record

VenueEMBO Reports · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMarkov chainClassifier (UML)Pattern recognition (psychology)Hidden Markov modelTest setArtificial intelligenceMarkov processMarkov modelMathematicsMachine learningStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

cormack.uwaterloo.ca/cormack Abstract. We describe the application of dynamic Markov modeling – a sequential bit-wise prediction technique – to labeling email corpora for the 2006 ECML/PKDD Discovery Challenge. Our technique involves: (1) converting the corpora’s bag-of-words representation to a sequence of bits; (2) using logistic regression on the training data to induce an initial maximum likelihood classifier; (2) combining all test sets into one; (3) ordering the combined set by decreasing magnitude of the log-likelihood ratio; (4) iteratively applying dynamic Markov modeling (DMC) to compute successive log-likelihood estimates; (5) averaging successive estimates to form an overall estimate; (6) partitioning the combined estimates into separate results for each test set. Post-hoc experiments showed that: (a) the iterative process improved on the initial classifier in almost all cases; (b) treating each test set separately yielded nearly indistinguishable results.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEMBO ReportsSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207