MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

KEYWORD EXTRACTION STRATEGY FOR ITEM BANKS TEXT CATEGORIZATION

2007· article· en· W2057505677 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

VenueComputational Intelligence · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationComputer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Keyword extractionNatural language processingPhraseSentenceArtificial intelligenceText categorizationFeature selectionInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We proposed a feature selection approach, Patterned Keyword in Phrase ( PKIP ), to text categorization for item banks. The item bank is a collection of textual question items that are short sentences. Each sentence does not contain enough relevant words for directly categorizing by the traditional approaches such as “bag‐of‐words.” Therefore, PKIP was designed to categorize such question item using only available keywords and their patterns. PKIP identifies the appropriate keywords by computing the weight of all words. In this paper, two keyword selection strategies are suggested to ensure the categorization accuracy of PKIP. PKIP was implemented and tested with the item bank of Thai high primary mathematics questions. The test results have proved that PKIP is able to categorize the question items correctly and the two keyword selection strategies can extract the very informative 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.327 · 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