MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Text Representation and Similarity Measure for Text Clustering Based on Semantic Strings: A Case Study on Uyghur Language

2021· article· en· W3129054449 on OpenAlexaff
Turdi Tohti, Xing Tan, Jimmy Xiangji Huang, Askar Hamdulla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Science and Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Computational Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceCluster analysisExplicit semantic analysisText graphString metricSemantic similarityString (physics)Text processingNoisy text analyticsWord (group theory)Set (abstract data type)Representation (politics)Similarity (geometry)Language modelInformation retrievalString searching algorithmSemantic computingText miningLinguisticsMathematicsPattern matchingSemantic technology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In Uyghur language, the words which are segmented by inter-word space as natural separator can hardly serve as features in text representation, which leads to the low efficiency of text processing, it is still a research topic how to use language units beyond word boundaries as features to represent texts and improve the efficiency of text processing. This paper proposes a semantic string extraction approach, which is a method for extracting language units beyond word boundaries. At the same time, it also proposes the methods for textual representation and similarity measurement, and verifies its effectiveness in Uyghur text clustering tasks. Specifically, a combination of string expansion and language rules are applied to identify the trusted frequent patterns (TFP) in the text set. Next, semantic strings are evaluated and selected from the text set. Regarding similarity measure, each text is represented as a weighted semantic string set, and a set-based text similarity measuring approach is presented. Finally, the above ideas and approaches are applied to the Uyghur text clustering, and the corresponding clustering algorithms are proposed and verified through series of experiments on the large-scale text corpus. Experimental results show that the semantic string-based text representation is in general very useful in processing Uyghur language.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Science and EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Computational Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207