Animal disease surveillance: How to represent textual data for classifying epidemiological information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The value of informal sources in increasing the timeliness of disease outbreak detection and providing detailed epidemiological information in the early warning and preparedness context is recognized. This study evaluates machine learning methods for classifying information from animal disease-related news at a fine-grained level (i.e., epidemiological topic). We compare two textual representations, the bag-of-words method and a distributional approach, i.e., word embeddings. Both representations performed well for binary relevance classification (F-measure of 0.839 and 0.871, respectively). Bag-of-words representation was outperformed by word embedding representation for classifying sentences into fine-grained epidemiological topics (F-measure of 0.745). Our results suggest that the word embedding approach is of interest in the context of low-frequency classes in a specialized domain. However, this representation did not bring significant performance improvements for binary relevance classification, indicating that the textual representation should be adapted to each classification task.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".