Feature Extraction and Classification of Email Spam Detection Using IMTF-IDF+Skip-Thought Vectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spam is a major concern in present emails, and there are several reasons for sending spam emails. The two most common ones are advertising and fraud. If supported by suitable preprocessing approaches, the detection algorithm for spam email or spam classifier will function effectively (removal of noise, removal of stop words, stemming, lemmatization, term frequency). Spam that combines both text and image components is referred to as hybrid spam. Compared to spam emails with images and text, it is more unsafe and complex. To distinguish spam or ham, we must use an effective and smart approach in order to have a strong representation of emails and improve classification performance. In this paper, we propose a multi-modal architecture relying on a feature model (MMA-FM) that concatenates two embedding vectors. The text and image sections of the similar emails were separated using a hybrid model (IMTF-IDF+Skip-thoughts) and the convolutional neural network (CNN) as a feature extraction technique. The extracted features are concatenated and given to Naïve Bayes (NB) and Support Vector Machine (SVM) models to classify hybrid email as either spam or ham. In this paper we used two hybrid datasets: Enron, Dredze, and TREC 2007, which are publicly accessible corpora. Our results show that the SVM model provides an accuracy of 99.16%, which is higher when compared to the Naïve Bayes method.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".