Semi-Automatic Labeling of Training Data Sets in Text Classification
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
Web includes digital libraries and billions of text documents. A fast and simple search through this sizeable set is important for users and researchers. Since manual or rule based document classification is a difficult, time consuming process, automatic classification systems are absolutely needed. Automatic text classification systems demand extensive and proper training data sets. To provide these data sets, usually, numerous unlabeled documents are labeled manually by experts. Manual labeling of documents is a difficult and time consuming process. Moreover, in manual labeling, due to human exhaustion and carelessness, there is the possibility of mistakes.In this study, semi-automatic creation of training data set has been proposed in a way that only a small percentage of this extensive set’s documents is labeled manually and the remaining percentage is done automatically. Results show that by labeling only ten percent of the training set, remaining documents can be automatically labeled with 98 percent of accuracy. It is worth mentioning that this reduction in accuracy only occurs in standard data sets, while for large practical data sets, this reduction is trivial compared to the accuracy reduction resulted by human exhaustion and carelessness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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