Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common approach in machine learning is to use a large amount of labeled data to train a model. Usually this model can then only be used to classify data in the same feature space. However, labeled data is often expensive to obtain. A number of strategies have been developed by the machine learning community in recent years to address this problem, including: semi-supervised learning,domain adaptation,multi-task learning,and self-taught learning. While training data and test may have different distributions, they must remain in the same feature set. Furthermore, all the above methods work in the same feature space. In this paper, we consider an extreme case of transfer learning called heterogeneous transfer learning — where the feature spaces of the source task and the target tasks are disjoint. Previous approaches mostly fall in the multi-view learning category, where co-occurrence data from both feature spaces is required. We generalize the previous work on cross-lingual adaptation and propose a multi-task strategy for the task. We also propose the use of a restricted Boltzmann machine (RBM), a special type of probabilistic graphical models, as an implementation. We present experiments on two tasks: action recognition and cross-lingual sentiment classification.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".