ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2021
Vector representation based on a supervised codebook for Nepali documents classification.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Multimodal Approach for Detection and Assessment of Depression Using Text, Audio and Video.Phenomics (Cham, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A Hybrid Feature Extraction Method for Nepali COVID-19-Related Tweets Classification.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
- A novel method for credit scoring based on feature transformation and ensemble model.PeerJ. Computer science · 2021Article
- Convolutional neural network-based ensemble methods to recognize Bangla handwritten character.PeerJ. Computer science · 2021Article
- Automated Amharic News Categorization Using Deep Learning Models.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2021Article
- Deep Learning-Based Methods for Sentiment Analysis on Nepali COVID-19-Related Tweets.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Document representation with outlier tokens exacerbates the classification performance due to the uncertain orientation of such tokens. Most existing document representation methods in different languages including Nepali mostly ignore the strategies to filter them out from documents before learning their representations. In this article, we propose a novel document representation method based on a supervised codebook to represent the Nepali documents, where our codebook contains only semantic tokens without outliers. Our codebook is domain-specific as it is based on tokens in a given corpus that have higher similarities with the class labels in the corpus. Our method adopts a simple yet prominent representation method for each word, called probability-based word embedding. To show the efficacy of our method, we evaluate its performance in the document classification task using Support Vector Machine and validate against widely used document representation methods such as Bag of Words, Latent Dirichlet allocation, Long Short-Term Memory, Word2Vec, Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers and so on, using four Nepali text datasets (we denote them shortly as A1, A2, A3 and A4). The experimental results show that our method produces state-of-the-art classification performance (77.46% accuracy on A1, 67.53% accuracy on A2, 80.54% accuracy on A3 and 89.58% accuracy on A4) compared to the widely used existing document representation methods. It yields the best classification accuracy on three datasets (A1, A2 and A3) and a comparable accuracy on the fourth dataset (A4). Furthermore, we introduce the largest Nepali document dataset (A4), called NepaliLinguistic dataset, to the linguistic community.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.