Using Convolutional Neural Networks to Extract Keywords and Keyphrases: A Case Study for Foodborne Illnesses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keywords and keyphrases are important for Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications such as document classification, information retrieval, and topic identification. They are also useful for capturing different classes of entities from content related to healthcare, biology, food science, and journalism fields. There are different approaches to extract keywords and keyphrases. Deep learning approaches have achieved high-performance results in terms of keywords and keyphrase extraction. However, among deep learning approaches, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) potentials have not been fully explored as a technique for extracting keywords and keyphrases. In this work, we performed a comparative study using a benchmark dataset, the IEEE Xplore collection to test the CNN generalization ability in selecting keywords and keyphrases. In addition, we further collected a corpus in the field of foodborne illness outbreaks. We utilize this corpus to develop a CNN-based identification approach of keywords and keyphrases related to foodborne illnesses. Results were compared with several supervised (KEA, GuidedLDA) and unsupervised (LDA) machine learning algorithms. CNN outperformed these algorithms in selecting relevant keywords and keyphrases for foodborne illnesses. The findings of this study have also confirmed superiority of CNN-based algorithm for keyphrase extraction to other machine learning approaches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".