MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132052677 · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2015.060121

A Survey of Topic Modeling in Text Mining

2015· article· en· W2132052677 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

VenueInternational Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatent Dirichlet allocationTopic modelComputer scienceProbabilistic latent semantic analysisNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceLatent semantic analysisField (mathematics)Probabilistic logicInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Topic models provide a convenient way to analyze large of unclassified text. A topic contains a cluster of words that frequently occur together. A topic modeling can connect words with similar meanings and distinguish between uses of words with multiple meanings. This paper provides two categories that can be under the field of topic modeling. First one discusses the area of methods of topic modeling, which has four methods that can be considerable under this category. These methods are Latent semantic analysis (LSA), Probabilistic latent semantic analysis (PLSA), Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA), and Correlated topic model (CTM). The second category is called topic evolution models, which model topics by considering an important factor time. In the second category, different models are discussed, such as topic over time (TOT), dynamic topic models (DTM), multiscale topic tomography, dynamic topic correlation detection, detecting topic evolution in scientific literature, etc.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.262 · 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