MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179438688 · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3095967

Authorship Classification in a Resource Constraint Language Using Convolutional Neural Networks

2021· article· en· W3179438688 on OpenAlexafffund
Md. Rajib Hossain, Mohammed Moshiul Hoque, M. Ali Akber Dewan, Nazmul Siddique, Nazmul Islam, Iqbal H. Sarker

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAuthorship Attribution and Profiling
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceWord2vecArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkEmbeddingClassifier (UML)HyperparameterNatural language processingPattern recognition (psychology)Document classificationMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Authorship classification is a method of automatically determining the appropriate author of an unknown linguistic text. Although research on authorship classification has significantly progressed in high-resource languages, it is at a primitive stage in the realm of resource-constraint languages like Bengali. This paper presents an authorship classification approach made of Convolution Neural Networks (CNN) comprising four modules: embedding model generation, feature representation, classifier training and classifier testing. For this purpose, this work develops a new embedding corpus (named WEC) and a Bengali authorship classification corpus (called BACC-18), which are more robust in terms of authors’ classes and unique words. Using three text embedding techniques (Word2Vec, GloVe and FastText) and combinations of different hyperparameters, 90 embedding models are created in this study. All the embedding models are assessed by intrinsic evaluators and those selected are the 9 best performing models out of 90 for the authorship classification. In total 36 classification models, including four classification models (CNN, LSTM, SVM, SGD) and three embedding techniques with 100, 200 and 250 embedding dimensions, are trained with optimized hyperparameters and tested on three benchmark datasets (BACC-18, BAAD16 and LD). Among the models, the optimized CNN with GloVe model achieved the highest classification accuracies of 93.45%, 95.02%, and 98.67% for the datasets BACC-18, BAAD16, and LD, respectively.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicAuthorship Attribution and ProfilingFrench-language works237,207