Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36568019›Full record

ArticleJournal of computational social science2023

A comparison of approaches for imbalanced classification problems in the context of retrieving relevant documents for an analysis.

Sandra Wankmüller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sandra WankmüllerLudwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4003-1704

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Active learningBoolean queryImbalanced classificationKeyword listsQuery expansionTopic models

Identifiers

PMID36568019
PMCPMC9762672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.