Ensemble CNN with Feature Selection and Soft Voting for Document Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Document categorization powers NLP capabilities, including spam filtering, sentiment identification, and document retrieval.Although machine-learning models are faster, they are less interpretable compared to deep learning systems.Deep learning CNNs are better at recognizing complex and non-linear text data associations.These models are difficult to trust in use-case circumstances due to their lack of transparency and noise sensitivity.We're using CNNs, Random Forest, and XGBoost models to address this challenge with a hybrid ensemble framework.Specially built cross-modal feature sanctification achieves our purpose.The traditional feature selection method uses chi-square (χ²) on raw TF-IDF vectors; however, we use a new approach.Using integrated gradients on the TF-IDF matrix, we uncover semantically relevant words and maintain only those that are neurally attentive and statistically discriminative under the chi-square test.These validated features are then fed as structured inputs to RF and XGBoost, while the original CNN continues processing full sequences in parallel.Predictions from four models (CNN, CNN-LSTM, CNN+XGBoost, and CNN+RF) are fused via a confidence-weighted soft voting mechanism, where weights are dynamically assigned based on consensus between neural attention and tree feature importance.The proposed Ensemble (CNN + XGBoost + RF) achieves perfect classification performance with 100% accuracy, precision, recall, and F1score on the BBC News test set, following training on the 70% training split and 30% testing with no overfitting observed, significantly outperforming baseline CNNs (65.25%),CNN-LSTM models (97.48%), and individual hybrids (e.g., CNN + XGBoost: 100%, CNN + RF: 99.21%).Crucially, our framework enhances not only accuracy but also interpretability, enabling traceable decision-making through aligned neural and statistical signals.The proposed architecture demonstrates practical scalability for real-time applications, including news categorization, intelligent content filtering, and semantic information retrieval-bridging the gap between high-performance deep learning and trustworthy, explainable AI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".