MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103759455

AUTOMATIC TERM EXTRACTION AND DOCUMENT SIMILARITY IN SPECIAL TEXT CORPORA

2003· article· en· W2103759455 on OpenAlexaff
Evangelos Milios, Yuke Zhang, Lei Dong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTerm (time)Natural language processingCollocation (remote sensing)Artificial intelligenceSimilarity (geometry)Representation (politics)Information retrievalWord (group theory)Lexical analysisText corpusVocabularyVector space modelTerminologyComputational linguisticsLinguisticsMachine learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper conflrms that the performance of a state-of-the-art automatic term extraction method on a computer science corpus is similar to previously published performance data on a medical corpus. The extracted terms are then used to estimate the similarity of papers in the computer science corpus using the standard Vector Space Model. The precision of retrieval using a term-based representation is compared with that of a word-based representation, and a link-based similarity metric based on the overlap of the local neighborhoods of the papers in the citation graph. The term-based approach ofiers comparable performance to the word-based approach, but potentially with a much smaller vocabulary size. Automatic term extraction in special text corpora is an interesting problem, which is becoming relevant as literature in speciflc scientiflc flelds such as medicine, biology and computer science explodes making it di‐cult to track the evolving terminology in the flelds [Kageura and Umino1996]. Early approaches to automatic term extraction were focused on information-theoretic approaches based on mutual information in detecting collocations [Manning and Schuetze1999]. Collocations are expressions that are composed of two or more words, the meaning of which is not easy to guess from the meanings of the component words. There are nuances in the detection of collocation that require linguistic criteria to resolve [Justeson and Katz1995]. Shallow linguistic criteria are based on acceptable sequences of part-of-speech tags. Part-of-speech tagging can be performed automatically [Brill1992]. A key problem is that of nesting, where subsets of consecutive words of terms consisting of multiple words would satisfy the statistical criteria for \termhood, but they would not be called terms. In the flrst part of this paper, we describe experiments with a state-of-the-art method, C-value/NC-value [Frantzi et al.2000], which combines statistical and linguistic information for automatic term extraction. We applied it to a special text corpus of computer science articles, which is of a difierent nature from the medical corpus on which the method was originally tested. We conflrmed that the performance of the method is equally good on our corpus, and we identifled some adjustments that the method required. In the second part of this paper, we use the terms extracted to estimate the similarity between two documents. We evaluate the quality of the similarity estimation based on terms in an information retrieval context. It is broadly believed that it is di‐cult to improve upon the bag-of-words representation as far as retrieval performance is concerned by using more sophisticated features or shallow linguistic techniques. Although retrieval based on terms did not show signiflcant improvement over a bag-of-words representation, our long-term objective is to cluster special text corpora into subareas, and automatically generate lexical ontologies from the clusters [Ayad and Kamel2002]. Terms in this context are of interest in themselves, and not purely as a vehicle to information retrieval. We are, furthermore, interested in similarity criteria taking into account proximity of terms [Koubarakis2001], for which again it is essential to work with terms, not words. The use of terms instead of words may also be preferable in information dissemination, where given a database of proflles (of c

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0190.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations55
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207