MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129546202 · doi:10.1109/tkde.2009.174

An Efficient Concept-Based Mining Model for Enhancing Text Clustering

2009· article· en· W2129546202 on OpenAlexaff
Shady Shehata, Fakhri Karray, Mohamed S. Kamel

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb Data Mining and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSentenceNatural language processingPhraseTerm (time)Similarity (geometry)Semantics (computer science)Cluster analysisArtificial intelligenceDocument clusteringMeaning (existential)Word (group theory)Measure (data warehouse)Information retrievalSimilarity measureSemantic similarityData miningLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of the common techniques in text mining are based on the statistical analysis of a term, either word or phrase. Statistical analysis of a term frequency captures the importance of the term within a document only. However, two terms can have the same frequency in their documents, but one term contributes more to the meaning of its sentences than the other term. Thus, the underlying text mining model should indicate terms that capture the semantics of text. In this case, the mining model can capture terms that present the concepts of the sentence, which leads to discovery of the topic of the document. A new concept-based mining model that analyzes terms on the sentence, document, and corpus levels is introduced. The concept-based mining model can effectively discriminate between nonimportant terms with respect to sentence semantics and terms which hold the concepts that represent the sentence meaning. The proposed mining model consists of sentence-based concept analysis, document-based concept analysis, corpus-based concept-analysis, and concept-based similarity measure. The term which contributes to the sentence semantics is analyzed on the sentence, document, and corpus levels rather than the traditional analysis of the document only. The proposed model can efficiently find significant matching concepts between documents, according to the semantics of their sentences. The similarity between documents is calculated based on a new concept-based similarity measure. The proposed similarity measure takes full advantage of using the concept analysis measures on the sentence, document, and corpus levels in calculating the similarity between documents. Large sets of experiments using the proposed concept-based mining model on different data sets in text clustering are conducted. The experiments demonstrate extensive comparison between the concept-based analysis and the traditional analysis. Experimental results demonstrate the substantial enhancement of the clustering quality using the sentence-based, document-based, corpus-based, and combined approach concept analysis.

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)0.006
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations131
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data EngineeringSame topicWeb Data Mining and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207