MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Text Classification Method Based on Gating Mechanism and Graph Convolutional Networks

2024· article· en· W4408897052 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGatingMechanism (biology)GraphConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer sciencePhysicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graph convolutional networks (GCN), in contrast to traditional neural networks, demonstrate advantages in handling non-Euclidean text classification problems by accommodating nodes and graphs with arbitrary topological structures. However, existing text classification models based on GCN often aggregate neighboring node information with equal or preset edge weights, neglecting effective consideration of local interactions between words. This limitation leads to insufficient expression of semantic information for nodes. Therefore, this paper proposes a text classification method based on the gating mechanism and graph convolutional networks. In this approach, termed graph convolutional networks based on the gating mechanism (GM-GCN), the gating mechanism is integrated with the two layers of GCN in TextGCN. GM-GCN utilizes a select matrix with gating functionality to control information transmission, allowing for the selective fusion of neighborhood information at multiple orders for nodes in the graph. This approach preserves prior orders' information, enabling a more effective focus on local interactions between words. Consequently, it enriches nodes' feature representation in capturing textual semantics. The experimental results demonstrate significant improvements in accuracy, precision, recall, GPU memory consumption, and runtime when compared with other classical and latest text classification models across four benchmark datasets: 20NG, R8, R52, and Ohsumed. For accuracy, this proposed method achieved notable enhancements of 0.34%, 0.27%, 0.32%, and 0.25%, respectively. Regarding precision, improvements were observed at 0.33%, 0.25%, 0.29%, and 0.24%, while recall showed enhancements of 0.28%, 0.31%, 0.26%, and 0.22%, respectively. In GPU memory consumption, the method demonstrated reductions of 137MB, 73MB, 86MB, and 88MB in space, and in terms of runtime, it exhibited decreases of 26s, 9s, 13s, and 16s, respectively. As a result of these findings, the proposed approach was found to be effective in improving text classification performance.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it