The Outcomes and Publication Standards of Research Descriptions in Document Classification: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Document classification, a critical area of research, employs machine and deep learning methods to solve real-world problems. This study attempts to highlight the qualitative and quantitative outcomes of the literature review from a broad range of scopes, including machine and deep learning methods, as well as solutions based on nature, biological, or quantum physics-inspired methods. A rigorous synthesis was conducted using a systematic literature review of 102 papers published between 2003 and 2023. The 20 Newsgroups (bydate version) were used as a reference point of benchmarks to ensure fair comparisons of methods. Qualitative analysis revealed that recent studies utilize Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) combined with models based on the transformer architecture and propose end-to-end solutions. Quantitative analysis demonstrated state-of-the-art results, with accuracy, micro and macro F1-scores of 90.38%, 88.28%, and 89.38%, respectively. However, the reproducibility of many studies may need to be revised for the scientific community. The resulting overview covers a wide range of document classification methods and can contribute to a better understanding of this field. Additionally, the systematic review approach reduces systematic error, making it useful for researchers in the document classification community.
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 | 0.163 | 0.491 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".