MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226052266 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2022.1.010

Artificial intelligence for target symptoms of Thai herbal medicine by web scraping

2022· article· en· W4226052266 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chairote Yaiprasert, Gorawit Yusakul

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWalailak University
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceThe InternetComputer scienceMedical knowledgeTrustworthinessMachine learningTraditional medicineMedical educationWorld Wide WebMedicineInternet privacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning (ML) is implementing artificial intelligence (AI) research within medicine that has made dramatic progress in recent years. In addition to standard treatments, the role of complementary and alternative medicine should be mentioned. Traditional Thai medicine has received growing acceptance as a complementary approach to modern medicine by using local herbs. A vast amount of Thai herbal knowledge and information is freely available on the Internet. The reader must evaluate each website and decide to use trustworthy and appropriate information. This study aimed to acquire Thai herbal knowledge recorded in the Thai language system on the Internet by scraping websites using programming techniques. The knowledge was extracted with programming, and the types of Thai herbs were classified corresponding to target symptoms by the machine learning algorithm. The ML method organized the process when sufficient achievement was reached in order to give reliable and high accuracy results from the training data set. The validation of extracted knowledge was achieved by using the part-of-speech tag patterns analysis. This study showed that the programming and machine learning system was appropriate for obtaining and classifying Thai herbal medicines knowledge.

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)0.003
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0050.002
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207