MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2578302695 · doi:10.1109/wi.2016.0095

Context Free Frequently Asked Questions Detection Using Machine Learning Techniques

2016· article· en· W2578302695 on OpenAlexaff
Fatemeh Razzaghi, Hamed Minaee, Ali A. Ghorbani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Fredericton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFrequently asked questionsNaive Bayes classifierClassifier (UML)Artificial intelligenceInformation retrievalMachine learningNatural language processingSupport vector machineFeature engineeringParsing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

FAQs are the lists of common questions and answers on particular topics. Today one can find them in almost all web sites on the internet and they can be a great tool to give information to the users. Questions in FAQs are usually identified by the site administrators on the basis of the questions that are asked by their users. While such questions can respond to required information about a service, topic, or particular subject, they can not easily be distinguished from non-FAQ questions. This paper describes machine learning based parsing and question classification for FAQs. We demonstrate that questions for FAQs can be distinguished from other types of questions. Identification of specific features is the key to obtaining an accurate FAQ classifier. We propose a simple yet effective feature set including bag of words, lexical, syntactical, and semantic features. To evaluate our proposed methods, we gathered a large data set of FAQs in three different contexts, which were labeled by humans from real data. We showed that the SVM and Naive Bayes reach the accuracy of 80.3%, which is an outstanding result for the early stage research on FAQ classification. Experimental results show that the proposed approach can be a practical tool for question answering systems. To evaluate the accuracy of our classifier we have conducted an evaluation process and built the questionnaire. Therefore, we compared our classifier ranked questions with user rates and almost 81% similarity of the question ratings gives some confidence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207