Extracting Discriminative Keyphrases with Learned Semantic Hierarchies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of keyphrase extraction is to automatically identify the most salient phrases from documents. The technique has a wide range of applications such as rendering a quick glimpse of a document, or extracting key content for further use. While previous work often assumes keyphrases are a static property of a given documents, in many applications, the appropriate set of keyphrases that should be extracted depends on the set of documents that are being considered together. In particular, good keyphrases should not only accurately describe the content of a document, but also reveal what discriminates it from the other documents. In this paper, we study this problem of extracting discriminative keyphrases. In particularly, we propose to use the hierarchical semantic structure between candidate keyphrases to promote keyphrases that have the right level of specificity to clearly distinguish the target document from others. We show that such knowledge can be used to construct better discriminative keyphrase extraction systems that do not assume a static, fixed set of keyphrases for a document. We show how this helps identify key expertise of authors from their papers, as well as competencies covered by online courses within different domains.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".