IMPACT OF TERM DEPENDENCY AND CLASS IMBALANCE ON THE PERFORMANCE OF FEATURE RANKING METHODS
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feature ranking is widely employed to deal with high dimensionality in text classification. The main advantage of feature ranking methods is their low cost and simple algorithms. However, they suffer from some drawbacks which cause low performance compared to wrapper approach feature selection methods. In this paper, three major drawbacks of feature ranking methods are discussed. First, we show that feature ranking methods are highly problem dependent. For designing an effective feature ranking method and appropriate ranking threshold, we need background knowledge including the data set characteristics as well as the classifier to be used. Second, the feature ranking methods are univariate functions, while the nature of text classification is multivariate. It means that in these methods, correlation between terms is ignored. Finally, they fail in multiple class problems with unbalanced class distribution because they pay more attention to the simpler and larger classes. In this paper, these drawbacks, especially the last two issues, are experimentally investigated using a set of extensive numerical experiments with several data sets and feature scoring measures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it