MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037796656 · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51517-1_31

Machine Learning Classification Models with SPD/ED Dataset: Comparative Study of Abstract Versus Full Article Approach

2020· book-chapter· en· W3037796656 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLecture notes in computer science · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBoosting (machine learning)Machine learningSupport vector machineDecision treeGradient boostingRandom forestPrecision and recallContext (archaeology)Recall

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the researchers need in the bio-medical domain, we opted for automating the bibliographic research stage. In this context, several classification models of supervised machine learning are used. Namely the SVM, Random Forest, Decision Tree, KNN, and Gradient Boosting. In this paper, we conduct a comparative study between experimental results of full article classification and abstract classification approaches. Furthermore, we evaluate our results by using evaluation metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall and F1-score. We observe that the abstract approach outperforms the full article approach in terms of learning time and efficiency.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.207 · 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