Semi-Supervised Ensemble Learning for Dealing with Inaccurate and Incomplete Supervision
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In real-world tasks, obtaining a large set of noise-free data can be prohibitively expensive. Therefore, recent research tries to enable machine learning to work with weakly supervised datasets, such as inaccurate or incomplete data. However, the previous literature treats each type of weak supervision individually, although, in most cases, different types of weak supervision tend to occur simultaneously. Therefore, in this article, we present Smart MEnDR, a Classification Model that applies Ensemble Learning and Data-driven Rectification to deal with inaccurate and incomplete supervised datasets. The model first applies a preliminary phase of ensemble learning in which the noisy data points are detected while exploiting the unlabelled data. The phase employs a semi-supervised technique with maximum likelihood estimation to decide on the disagreement rate. Second, the proposed approach applies an iterative meta-learning step to tackle the problem of knowing which points should be made correct to improve the performance of the final classifier. To evaluate the proposed framework, we report the classification performance, noise detection, and the labelling accuracy of the proposed method against state-of-the-art techniques. The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework in detecting noise, providing correct labels, and attaining high classification performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it