MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417338869 · doi:10.1109/ictai66417.2025.00123

Detecting Machine-Generated Text using Grammatical Features

2025· article· W4417338869 on OpenAlexaff
Colbert Ngouanfouo, Alan Davoust

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPunctuationNatural languageRobustness (evolution)Classifier (UML)Adversarial systemLanguage modelArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced natural language generation but pose ethical and practical challenges, making it crucial to detect machine-generated texts. Traditional detection methods rely on complex, hard-to-interpret neural encodings and model-specific features like perplexity. This study explores whether grammatical patterns-specifically sequences of parts of speech (POS), including punctuation and symbols-can distinguish machine-written texts from human ones. Using a CNN classifier on POS sequences, the approach achieves nearly 90 % accuracy on a benchmark dataset. Combining POS-based features with neural embeddings improves performance, and the model shows robustness against adversarial attacks, though it is less effective on short texts.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionFrench-language works237,207