MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098465658 · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001072

Direct comparison between support vector machine and multinomial naive Bayes algorithms for medical abstract classification

2012· letter· en· W2098465658 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

VenueJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineComputer scienceMachine learningNaive Bayes classifierArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmBayesian probabilityRelevance vector machineMultinomial distributionTask (project management)Bayes' theoremStructured support vector machineData miningMathematicsStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2011 Matwin et al published a letter to JAMIA entitled ‘Performance of SVM and Bayesian classifiers on the systematic review classification task’.1 This letter continued a discussion on the relative benefits of using support vector machine (SVM) and Bayesian techniques for performing systematic reviews.2–4 In particular, it was suggested that the running time of algorithms must be taken into consideration when comparing their performances as it becomes very important for large datasets. Following up on this idea, we attempted to directly compare the performance of a Bayesian method with the SVM algorithm used by Cohen in his original work.4 The same SVM system (SVMlight5) with the same parameters as was …

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.288 · 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