MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966427115 · doi:10.1145/2232817.2232866

Investigating keyphrase indexing with text denoising

2012· article· en· W1966427115 on OpenAlexafffund
Rushdi Shams, Robert E. Mercer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSearch engine indexingComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Noise reductionArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingNoise (video)Energy (signal processing)Pattern recognition (psychology)Information retrievalImage (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we report on indexing performance by a state-of-the-art keyphrase indexer, Maui, when paired with a text extraction procedure called text denoising. Text denoising is a method that extracts the denoised text, comprising the content-rich sentences, from full texts. The performance of the keyphrase indexer is demonstrated on three standard corpora collected from three domains, namely food and agriculture, high energy physics, and biomedical science. Maui is trained using the full texts and denoised texts. The indexer, using its trained models, then extracts keyphrases from test sets comprising full texts, and their denoised and noise parts (i.e., the part of texts that remains after denoising). Experimental findings show that against a gold standard, the denoised-text-trained indexer indexing full texts, performs either better than or as good as its benchmark performance produced by a full-text-trained indexer indexing full texts.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207