MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047032662 · doi:10.3115/1072228.1072372

Concept discovery from text

2002· article· en· W2047032662 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWordNetCluster analysisComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)CentroidCluster (spacecraft)Task (project management)Similarity (geometry)Artificial intelligenceData miningFeature vectorInformation retrievalQuality (philosophy)Natural language processingImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Broad-coverage lexical resources such as WordNet are extremely useful. However, they often include many rare senses while missing domain-specific senses. We present a clustering algorithm called CBC (Clustering By Committee) that automatically discovers concepts from text. It initially discovers a set of tight clusters called committees that are well scattered in the similarity space. The centroid of the members of a committee is used as the feature vector of the cluster. We proceed by assigning elements to their most similar cluster. Evaluating cluster quality has always been a difficult task. We present a new evaluation methodology that is based on the editing distance between output clusters and classes extracted from WordNet (the answer key). Our experiments show that CBC outperforms several well-known clustering algorithms in cluster quality.

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 score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Quick stats

Citations185
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207