TAG: Toward Accurate Social Media Content Tagging with a Concept Graph
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although conceptualization has been widely studied in semantics and knowledge representation, it is still challenging to find the most accurate concept terms to tag fast-growing social media content. This is partly attributed to the fact that most traditional knowledge bases contain general terms of the world, such as trees and cars, which are not interesting to users, and do not have the defining power for social media content. Another reason is that the intricate use of tense, negation and grammar in social media content may change the logic or emphasis of the content, thus focusing on different main ideas. In this paper, we present TAG, a high-quality concept matching dataset consisting of 10,000 labeled pairs of fine-grained concepts and web-styled natural language sentences, mined from open-domain social media content. The concepts we provide are the trending terms on social media and have the right granularity to define user interests, e.g., highly educated actors instead of just actors. In the meantime, TAG offers a concept graph which interconnects these fine-grained concepts and entities to provide contextual information. We evaluate a wide range of neural text matching models as well as pre-trained language models for the concept matching task on TAG, and point out their insufficiency to tag social media content to characterize its main idea. We further propose a novel graph-graph matching framework that demonstrates superior abstraction and generalization performance by better utilizing both the structural information in the concept graph and logic interactions between semantic units in the natural language sentence via syntactic dependency parsing.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".