A characterization of wordnet features in Boolean models for text classification
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
Supervised text classification is the task of automatically assigning a category label to a previously unlabeled text document. We start with a collection of pre-labeled examples whose assigned categories are used to build a predictive model for each category. In previous research, incorporating semantic features from the WordNet lexical database is one of many approaches that have been tried to improve the predictive accuracy of text classification models. The intuition is that words in the training set alone may not be extensive enough to enable the generation of a universal model for a category, but through Word-Net expansion (i.e., incorporating words defined by various relationships in WordNet), a more accurate model may be possible. In this paper, we report preliminary results obtained from a comprehensive study where WordNet features, part of speech tags, and term weighting schemes are incorporated into two-category text classification models generated by both a Naive Bayes text classifier and an SVM text classifier. We characterize the behaviour of these classifiers on fifteen document collections extracted from the Reuters-21578, USENET, DigiTrad, and 20-Newsgroups text corpora. Experimental results show that incorporating WordNet features, utilizing part of speech tags during WordNet expansion, and term weighting schemes have no positive effect on the accuracy of the Naive Bayes and SVM classifiers.
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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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