Predicting classification errors using NLP-based machine learning algorithms and expert opinions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various intentional and unintentional biases of humans manifest in classification tasks, such as those related to risk management. In this paper we demonstrate the role of ML algorithms when accomplishing these tasks and highlight the role of expert know-how when training the staff as well as, and very importantly, when training and fine-tuning ML algorithms. In the process of doing so and when facing well-known inefficiencies of the traditional F1 score, especially when working with unbalanced datasets, we suggest a modification of the score by incorporating human-experience-trained algorithms, which include both expert-trained algorithms (i.e., with the involvement of expert experiences in classification tasks) and staff-trained algorithms (i.e., with the involvement of experiences of those staff who have been trained by experts). Our findings reveal that the modified F1 score diverges from the traditional staff F1 score when the staff labels exhibit weak correlation with expert labels, which indicates insufficient staff training. Furthermore, the Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) model outperforms other classifiers in terms of the modified F1 score when applied to the classification of textual narratives in consumer complaints. • Exploring classification performance evaluation for human-experience-related data. • Improving text classification performance by optimizing a word embedding process. • Using oversampling methods to improve the text classification under data imbalance.
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 | 0.014 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".