MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

KEYWORD EXTRACTION STRATEGY FOR ITEM BANKS TEXT CATEGORIZATION

2007· article· en· W2057505677 on OpenAlexaff
Atorn Nuntiyagul, Kanlaya Naruedomkul, Nick Cercone, Damras Wongsawang

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational IntelligenceSame topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207