Fusion of spatiotemporal and thematic features of textual data for animal disease surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several internet-based surveillance systems have been created to monitor the web for animal health surveillance. These systems collect a large amount of news dealing with outbreaks related to animal diseases. Automatically identifying news articles that describe the same outbreak event is a key step to quickly detect relevant epidemiological information while alleviating manual curation of news content. This paper addresses the task of retrieving news articles that are related in epidemiological terms. We tackle this issue using text mining and feature fusion methods. The main objective of this paper is to identify a textual representation in which two articles that share the same epidemiological content are close. We compared two types of representations (i.e., features) to represent the documents: (i) morphosyntactic features (i.e., selection and transformation of all terms from the news, based on classical textual processing steps) and (ii) lexicosemantic features (i.e., selection, transformation and fusion of epidemiological terms including diseases, hosts, locations and dates). We compared two types of term weighing (i.e., Boolean and TF-IDF) for both representations. To combine and transform lexicosemantic features, we compared two data fusion techniques (i.e., early fusion and late fusion) and the effect of features generalisation, while evaluating the relative importance of each type of feature. We conducted our analysis using a corpus composed of a subset of news articles in English related to animal disease outbreaks. Our results showed that the combination of relevant lexicosemantic (epidemiological) features using fusion methods improves classical morphosyntactic representation in the context of disease-related news retrieval. The lexicosemantic representation based on TF-IDF and feature generalisation (F-measure = 0.92, r-precision = 0.58) outperformed the morphosyntactic representation (F-measure = 0.89, r-precision = 0.45), while reducing the features space. Converting the features into lower granular features (i.e., generalisation) contributed to improving the results of the lexicosemantic representation. Our results showed no difference between the early and late fusion approaches. Temporal features performed poorly on their own. Conversely, spatial features were the most discriminative features, highlighting the need for robust methods for spatial entity extraction, disambiguation and representation in internet-based surveillance systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".