Improving dialogue classification using a topic space representation and a Gaussian classifier based on the decision rule
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study the impact of dialogue representations and classification methods in the task of theme identification of telephone conversation services having highly imperfect automatic transcriptions. Two dialogue representations are firstly compared: the classical Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency with Gini purity criteria (TF-IDF-Gini) method and the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) approach. We then propose to study an original classification method that takes advantage of the LDA topic space representation, highlighted as the best dialogue representation. To do so, two assumptions about topic representation led us to choose a Gaussian process (GP) based method. This approach is compared with a Support Vector Machine (SVM) classification method. Results show that the GP approach is a better solution to deal with the multiple theme complexity of a dialogue, no matter the conditions studied (manual or automatic transcriptions). We finally discuss the impact of the topic space reduction on the classification accuracy.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it