ArticleJournal of computational social science2023
A comparison of approaches for imbalanced classification problems in the context of retrieving relevant documents for an analysis.
Article in Journal of computational social science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Summaries of Social Media Timelines for Mental Health Monitoring: Human Versus Large Language Model Comparative Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Triaging Casual From Critical-Leveraging Machine Learning to Detect Self-Harm and Suicide Risks for Youth on Social Media: Algorithm Development and Validation Study.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Application of artificial intelligence chatbots in interpreting magnetic resonance imaging reports: a comparative study.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Application of AI Chatbot in Responding to Asynchronous Text-Based Messages From Patients With Cancer: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the first steps in many text-based social science studies is to retrieve documents that are relevant for an analysis from large corpora of otherwise irrelevant documents. The conventional approach in social science to address this retrieval task is to apply a set of keywords and to consider those documents to be relevant that contain at least one of the keywords. But the application of incomplete keyword lists has a high risk of drawing biased inferences. More complex and costly methods such as query expansion techniques, topic model-based classification rules, and active as well as passive supervised learning could have the potential to more accurately separate relevant from irrelevant documents and thereby reduce the potential size of bias. Yet, whether applying these more expensive approaches increases retrieval performance compared to keyword lists at all, and if so, by how much, is unclear as a comparison of these approaches is lacking. This study closes this gap by comparing these methods across three retrieval tasks associated with a data set of German tweets (Linder in SSRN, 2017. 10.2139/ssrn.3026393), the Social Bias Inference Corpus (SBIC) (Sap et al. in Social bias frames: reasoning about social and power implications of language. In: Jurafsky et al. (eds) Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, p 5477-5490, 2020. 10.18653/v1/2020.aclmain.486), and the Reuters-21578 corpus (Lewis in Reuters-21578 (Distribution 1.0). [Data set], 1997. http://www.daviddlewis.com/resources/testcollections/reuters21578/). Results show that query expansion techniques and topic model-based classification rules in most studied settings tend to decrease rather than increase retrieval performance. Active supervised learning, however, if applied on a not too small set of labeled training instances (e.g. 1000 documents), reaches a substantially higher retrieval performance than keyword lists.
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.