MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035069493 · doi:10.1109/ichit.2006.165

Keyword Extraction from Documents Using a Neural Network Model

2006· article· en· W2035069493 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Hybrid Information Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkBackpropagationKeyword extractionSelection (genetic algorithm)Word (group theory)Artificial intelligencetf–idfFeature selectionNatural language processingFeature (linguistics)Feature extractionInformation retrievalTerm (time)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A document surrogate is usually represented in a list of words. Because not all words in a document reflect its content, it is necessary to select important words from the document that relate to its content. Such important words are called keywords and are selected with a particular equation based on Term Frequency (TF) and Inverted Document Frequency (IDF). Additionally, the position of each word in the document and the inclusion of the word in the title should be considered to select keywords among words contained in the text. The equation based on these factors gets too complicated to be applied to the selection of keywords. This paper proposes a neural network back propagation model in which these factors are used as the features and feature vectors are generated to select keywords. This paper will show that the proposed neural network backpropagation approach outperforms the equation in distinguishing keywords.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.283 · 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