MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2938956725 · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.04.020

Empirical evaluation of feature projection algorithms for multi-view text classification

2019· article· en· W2938956725 on OpenAlexaff
Marcin Mirończuk, Jarosław Protasiewicz, Witold Pedrycz

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Systems with Applications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Projection (relational algebra)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to propose (i) a multi-view text classification method and (ii) a ranking method that allows for selecting the best information fusion layer among many variations. Multi-view document classification is worth a detailed study as it makes it possible to combine different feature sets into yet another view that further improves text classification. For this purpose, we propose a multi-view framework for text classification that is composed of two levels of information fusion. At the first level, classifiers are constructed using different data views, i.e. different vector space models by various machine learning algorithms . At the second level, the information fusion layer uses input information using a features projection method and a meta-classifier modelled by a selected machine learning algorithm. A final decision based on classification results produced by the models positioned at the first layer is reached. Moreover, we propose a ranking method to assess various configurations of the fusion layer. We use heuristics that utilise statistical properties of F-score values calculated for classification results produced at the fusion layer. The information fusion layer of the classification framework and ranking method has been empirically evaluated. For this purpose, we introduce a use case checking whether companies’ domains identify their innovativeness . The results empirically demonstrate that the information fusion layer enhances classification quality. The Friedman’s aligned rank and Wilcoxon signed-rank statistical tests and the effect size support this hypothesis. In addition, the Spearman statistical test carried out for the obtained results demonstrated that the assessment made by the proposed ranking method converges to a well-established method named Hellinger - The Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (H-TOPSIS). Thus, the proposed approach may be used for the assessment of classifier performance.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Systems with ApplicationsSame topicText and Document Classification TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207