MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145753452 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2007.203

Document Classification with ACM Subject Hierarchy

2007· article· en· W2145753452 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCategorizationInformation retrievalHierarchyClassifier (UML)Document classificationText categorizationDigital libraryClassification schemeLibrary classificationSubject (documents)Focus (optics)Context (archaeology)Artificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Text categorization or text classification (TC) has recently received increased research attention from information retrieval and machine learning communities, this focus is driven mostly by the ever growing demand for effective and efficient content-based, document management. In the context of digital library or Web portal application, the problem of text categorization is normally that of classification scheme with a topic hierarchy containing all the pre-defined categories. This paper describes our approach to building the hierarchical text classifier for the experimental CINDI Digital Library . The classification system constructed features a top-to-down, coarse-to-fine categorization procedure. We evaluate our system's performance by experiment on a self-generated corpus of the Computer Science papers archived in ACM DL.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.280
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