MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115013425 · doi:10.1007/s44443-025-00413-8

A novel multi-label deep forest algorithm based on elite preservation strategy and multi-layer feature fusion

2025· article· en· W7115013425 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)Field (mathematics)FusionStability (learning theory)Pattern recognition (psychology)Random forestLayer (electronics)Statistical classification

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-label classification is a popular research direction in the field of machine learning and pattern recognition, and has shown significant application potential in real-life scenarios. However, traditional multi-label classification algorithms still suffer from the low classification accuracy and instability due to the lack of feature diversity. To tackle this issue, this paper investigates the effect of feature diversity on the ensemble model based on the deep forest framework, and subsequently presents a multi-label deep forest algorithm based on elite preservation strategy and multi-layer feature fusion (EMDF). Firstly, the elite preservation strategy is introduced to screen the forests in the cascades layer by layer for reestablishing the cascades structure. This enables the screened cascades to acquire better predicted feature vectors. Secondly, combined with the predicted feature vectors of screened cascades, the multi-layer feature fusion strategy is put forward to enhance the label information of input features and improve the predictive performance of the model. Finally, EMDF is extensively tested on 10 different types of comparative algorithms and 12 various fields datasets. Experimental results show that EMDF achieves better accuracy on multiple metrics such as Hamming loss and Coverage on most datasets. Furthermore, a comprehensive evaluation of algorithm rankings on all metrics also demonstrates the superior stability of EMDF.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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 venueJournal of King Saud University - Computer and Information SciencesSame topicText and Document Classification TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207