Estimating the Credibility of Examples in Automatic Document Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Classification algorithms usually assume that any example in the raining set should contribute equally to the classification model being generated. However, this is not always the case. This paper shows that the contribution of an example to the classification model varies according to many factors, which are application dependent, and can be estimated using what we call a credibility function. The credibility of an entity reflects how much value it aggregates to a task being performed, and here we investigate it in Automatic Document Classification, where the credibility of a document relates to its terms, authors, citations, venues, time of publication, among others. After introducing the concept of credibility in classification, we investigate how to estimate a credibility function using information regarding documents content, citations and authorship using mainly metrics previously defined in the literature. As the credibility of the content of a document can be easily mapped to any other classification problem, in a second phase we focus on content-based credibility functions. We propose a genetic programming algorithm to estimate this function based on a large set of metrics generally used to measure the strength of term-class relationship. The proposed and evolved credibility functions are then incorporated to the Naive Bayes classifier, and applied to four text collections, namely ACM-DL, Reuters, Ohsumed, and 20 Newsgroup. The results obtained showed significant improvements in both micro-F1 and macro-F1, with gains up to 21% in Ohsumed when compared to the traditional Naive Bayes.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".