MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2571826164 · doi:10.1109/wi.2016.0034

Detecting the Magnitude of Events from News Articles

2016· article· en· W2571826164 on OpenAlexafffund
Ameeta Agrawal, Raghavender Sahdev, Heidar Davoudi, Forouq Khonsari, Aijun An, Susan McGrath

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaGeorgetown University
KeywordsComputer scienceEvent (particle physics)VocabularySimilarity (geometry)Set (abstract data type)Focus (optics)Magnitude (astronomy)Natural language processingCorrelationWord (group theory)Artificial intelligenceInformation retrievalData scienceData miningMachine learningMathematicsLinguisticsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forced migration is increasingly becoming a global issue of concern. In this paper, we present an effective model of targeted event detection, as an essential step towards the forced migration detection problem. To date, most of the the approaches deal with the event detection in a general setting with the main objective of detecting the presence or onset of an event. However, we focus on analyzing the magnitude of a given event from a collection of text documents such as news articles from multiple sources. We use violence as an illustration as it is one of the most critical factors of forced migration. The recent advancements in semantic similarity measures are adopted to obtain relevant violence scores for each word in the vocabulary of news articles in an unsupervised manner. The resulting scores are then used to compute the average daily violence scores over a period of three months. Evaluation of the proposed model against a manually annotated data set yields a Pearson's correlation of 0.8. We also include a case study exploring the relationship between violence and key events.

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 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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207