Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42420346›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Comparative evaluation of domain-specific and general-purpose transformer models for Arabic poet classification.

Sarah Alnefaie

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Sarah AlnefaieDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Computing and Information Technology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. salnefaie@kau.edu.sa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Arabic poet classification presents distinctive challenges stemming from the morphological richness and stylistic diversity inherent in both classical and modern Arabic verse. This study conducts an extensive comparative evaluation of several neural language models to assess their ability to represent poetic expression and capture authorial characteristics. Two carefully curated datasets are utilised: FrequentPoets, representing prolific authors with extensive verse collections, and CrossEraPoets, encompassing poets from distinct historical periods to examine temporal stylistic variation. A comparative evaluation framework is introduced to contrast domain-specific and general-purpose language models across prolific authorship and cross-era stylistic variation. The domain-adapted AraPoemBERT consistently achieves superior performance, attaining 73.11% accuracy (73.00% F1) on FrequentPoets and 77.06% accuracy (77.04% F1) on CrossEraPoets, whereas the general-purpose GPT-4o demonstrates considerably lower performance under zero-shot and few-shot evaluation settings. The results highlight the significance of domain-adapted pretraining for morphologically complex languages like Arabic and suggest the potential advantage of transformer-based architectures in modelling stylistic and linguistic nuances unique to Arabic verse. These findings also suggest that temporal diversity may play an important role in model generalisation across different poetic styles. The study contributes to Arabic Natural Language Processing (NLP) and digital humanities by enabling computational authorship attribution, stylistic analysis, and cross-historical exploration of Arabic literary heritage. Overall, the proposed framework provides a robust foundation for future research in Arabic poetry analytics and domain-specific language modelling.

Indexed as

Arabic NLPArabic poetryDomain-specific pretrainingPoet classificationTransformer-based models

Identifiers

PMID42420346
PMCPMC13346815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.