Interactive topic hierarchy revision for exploring a collection of online conversations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decade, there has been an exponential growth of asynchronous online conversations (e.g. blogs), thanks to the rise of social media. Analyzing and gaining insights from such discussions can be quite challenging for a user, especially when the user deals with hundreds of comments that are scattered around multiple different conversations. A promising solution to this problem is to automatically mine the major topics from conversations and organize them into a hierarchical structure. However, the resultant topic hierarchy can be noisy and/or it may not match the user’s current information needs. To address this problem, we introduce a novel human-in-the-loop approach that allows the user to revise the topic hierarchy based on her feedback. We incorporate this approach within a visual text analytics system that helps users in analyzing and getting insights from conversations by exploring and revising the topic hierarchy. We evaluated the resulting system with real users in a lab-based study. The results from the user study, when compared to its counterpart that does not support interactive revisions of a hierarchical topic model, provide empirical evidence of the potential utility of our system in terms of both performance and subjective measures. Finally, we summarize generalizable lessons for introducing human-in-the-loop computation within a visual text analytics system.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".