Active Learning with Visualization for Text Data
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
Labeled datasets are always limited, and oftentimes the quantity of labeled data is a bottleneck for data analytics. This especially affects supervised machine learning methods, which require labels for models to learn from the labeled data. Active learning algorithms have been proposed to help achieve good analytic models with limited labeling efforts, by determining which additional instance labels will be most beneficial for learning for a given model. Active learning is consistent with interactive analytics as it proceeds in a cycle in which the unlabeled data is automatically explored. However, in active learning users have no control of the instances to be labeled, and for text data, the annotation interface is usually document only. Both of these constraints seem to affect the performance of an active learning model. We hypothesize that visualization techniques, particularly interactive ones, will help to address these constraints. In this paper, we implement a pilot study of visualization in active learning for text classification, with an interactive labeling interface. We compare the results of three experiments. Early results indicate that visualization improves high-performance machine learning model building with an active learning algorithm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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