Deep learning modelling techniques: current progress, applications, advantages, and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deep learning (DL) is revolutionizing evidence-based decision-making techniques that can be applied across various sectors. Specifically, it possesses the ability to utilize two or more levels of non-linear feature transformation of the given data via representation learning in order to overcome limitations posed by large datasets. As a multidisciplinary field that is still in its nascent phase, articles that survey DL architectures encompassing the full scope of the field are rather limited. Thus, this paper comprehensively reviews the state-of-art DL modelling techniques and provides insights into their advantages and challenges. It was found that many of the models exhibit a highly domain-specific efficiency and could be trained by two or more methods. However, training DL models can be very time-consuming, expensive, and requires huge samples for better accuracy. Since DL is also susceptible to deception and misclassification and tends to get stuck on local minima, improved optimization of parameters is required to create more robust models. Regardless, DL has already been leading to groundbreaking results in the healthcare, education, security, commercial, industrial, as well as government sectors. Some models, like the convolutional neural network (CNN), generative adversarial networks (GAN), recurrent neural network (RNN), recursive neural networks, and autoencoders, are frequently used, while the potential of other models remains widely unexplored. Pertinently, hybrid conventional DL architectures have the capacity to overcome the challenges experienced by conventional models. Considering that capsule architectures may dominate future DL models, this work aimed to compile information for stakeholders involved in the development and use of DL models in the contemporary world.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".