MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740006839 · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1114

A Local Detection Approach for Named Entity Recognition and Mention Detection

2017· article· en· W2740006839 on OpenAlexafffund
Mingbin Xu, Hui Jiang, Sedtawut Watcharawittayakul

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceNamed-entity recognitionSequence labelingTask (project management)ENCODESentenceArtificial intelligenceFragment (logic)Encoding (memory)ForgettingSequence (biology)Representation (politics)Natural language processingPattern recognition (psychology)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study a novel approach for named entity recognition (NER) and mention detection (MD) in natural language processing.Instead of treating NER as a sequence labeling problem, we propose a new local detection approach, which relies on the recent fixed-size ordinally forgetting encoding (FOFE) method to fully encode each sentence fragment and its left/right contexts into a fixedsize representation.Subsequently, a simple feedforward neural network (FFNN) is learned to either reject or predict entity label for each individual text fragment.The proposed method has been evaluated in several popular NER and MD tasks, including CoNLL 2003 NER task and TAC-KBP2015 and TAC-KBP2016 Tri-lingual Entity Discovery and Linking (EDL) tasks.Our method has yielded pretty strong performance in all of these examined tasks.This local detection approach has shown many advantages over the traditional sequence labeling methods.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations143
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207