Active feature elicitation: An unified framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of active feature elicitation in which, given some examples with all the features (say, the full Electronic Health Record), and many examples with some of the features (say, demographics), the goal is to identify the set of examples on which more information (say, lab tests) need to be collected. The observation is that some set of features may be more expensive, personal or cumbersome to collect. We propose a classifier-independent, similarity metric-independent, general active learning approach which identifies examples that are dissimilar to the ones with the full set of data and acquire the complete set of features for these examples. Motivated by four real clinical tasks, our extensive evaluation demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach. To demonstrate the generalization capabilities of the proposed approach, we consider different divergence metrics and classifiers and present consistent results across the domains.
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 | 0.021 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".