Inside the Black Box of Dictionary Building for Text Analytics: A Design Science Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to develop and demonstrate a dictionary building process model for text analytics projects following the design science methodology. Using inductive consensus-building, we examined prior research to develop an initial process model. The model is subsequently demonstrated and validated by using data to develop an environmental sustainability dictionary for the IT industry. To our knowledge, this is an initial attempt to provide a normalized dictionary building process for text analytics projects. The resulting process model can provide a road map for researchers who want to use automated approaches to text analysis but are currently prevented by the lack of applicable domain dictionaries. Having a normalized design process model will assist researchers by legitimizing their work requiring dictionary building and help academic reviewers by providing an evaluation framework. The resulting environmental sustainability dictionary for IT industry can be used as a starting point for future research on Green IT and sustainability management.
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 | 0.076 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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.
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".