ContrastNet: A Contrastive Learning Framework for Few-Shot Text Classification
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
Few-shot text classification has recently been promoted by the meta-learning paradigm which aims to identify target classes with knowledge transferred from source classes with sets of small tasks named episodes. Despite their success, existing works building their meta-learner based on Prototypical Networks are unsatisfactory in learning discriminative text representations between similar classes, which may lead to contradictions during label prediction. In addition, the task-level and instance-level overfitting problems in few-shot text classification caused by a few training examples are not sufficiently tackled. In this work, we propose a contrastive learning framework named ContrastNet to tackle both discriminative representation and overfitting problems in few-shot text classification. ContrastNet learns to pull closer text representations belonging to the same class and push away text representations belonging to different classes, while simultaneously introducing unsupervised contrastive regularization at both task-level and instance-level to prevent overfitting. Experiments on 8 few-shot text classification datasets show that ContrastNet outperforms the current state-of-the-art models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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