A graph-based topic extraction method enabling simple interactive customization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is often desirable to identify the concepts that are present in a corpus. A popular way to deal with this objective is to discover clusters of words or topics, for which many algorithms exist in the literature. Yet most of these methods lack the interpretability that would enable interaction with a user not familiar with their inner workings. The paper proposes a graph-based topic extraction algorithm, which can also be viewed as a soft-clustering of words present in a given corpus. Each topic, in the form of a set of words, represents an underlying concept in the corpus. The method allows easy interpretation of the clustering process, and hence enables the scope of user involvement at various steps. For a quantitative evaluation of the topics extracted, we use them as features to get a compact representation of documents for classification tasks. We compare the classification accuracy achieved by a reduced feature set obtained with our method versus other topic extraction techniques, namely Latent Dirichlet Allocation and Non-negative Matrix Factorization. While the results from all the three algorithms are comparable, the speed and easy interpretability of our algorithm makes it more appropriate to be used interactively by lay users.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".