Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the sub-language nature of taxonomic descriptions of animals and plants, researchers have warned about the existence of large variations among different description collections in terms of information content and its representation. These variations impose a serious threat to the development of automatic tools to structure large volumes of text-based descriptions. This paper presents a general approach to mark up different collections of taxonomic descriptions with XML, using two large-scale floras as examples. The markup system, MARTT, is based on machine learning methods and enhanced by machine learned domain rules and conventions. Experiments show that our simple and efficient machine learning algorithms outperform significantly general purpose algorithms and that rules learned from one flora can be used when marking up a second flora and help to improve the markup performance, especially for elements that have sparse training examples.Malgré la nature de sous-langage des descriptions taxinomiques des animaux et des plantes, les chercheurs reconnaissent l’existence de vastes variations parmi différentes collections de descriptions, en termes de contenu informationnel et de leur représentation. Ces variations présentent une menace sérieuse pour le développement d’outils automatiques pour la structuration de larges…
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".