-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Document Metadata
For each document in the corpus, we tried to obtain the following metadata:
- spatial scale
- temporal scale
- country
- funding source
After careful investigation of the topics resulting from the LDA, we found that the spatial scale as well as the components of the water budget can both be obtained by using the LDA topics.
The problem at hand is a classification task. Classification can have multiple labels or one label with different values. In a multilabel classification, documents have the spatial scales labels: "Day" and "Week" and "Year" at the same time. A multi-class example for the current problem is one label "Timescale" with values "Day", "Week", "Year" and so on. Multi-class problems are simpler than multi-labels problem.
Two main approaches exist to solve such a multi-label classification problem. The first one is to use algorithm adapted for such a task. The second one is to transform the problem to make it tractable. Such a transformation can be achieved through two schemes: Binary Relevance (BR) and Label Powerset (LP). In the LP approach, the multilabel problem is transformed into a multi-class classification of the labelsets. In the BR approach, the problem is decomposed in a set of binary problems. In addition, we tested more refined BR approaches: classifier chains were the binary classifiers are trained in a given order to predict the labels; nested stacking were the labels are approximated successively by learners and dependent binary relevance where every other labels are used as the input for each label-specific binary learners and stacking which combine dependent binary relevance and nested stacking.
The main performance metric used is the multilabel Hamming loss corresponding to the proportion of incorrectly predicted labels. We also use the subset 0 1 metric corresponding to the proportion of observations for which the complete set of label is correctly predicted.
For deriving the spatial scale metadata we initially tried the following approaches:
| labels | input | model |
|---|---|---|
| multilabel | DTM from cleaned corpus | algorithm adaptation |
| multilabel | LDA topics membership | algorithm adaptation |
| multilabel | DTM from cleaned corpus | binary relevance (and variations) |
| multilabel | LDA topics membership | binary relevance (and variations) |
| multilabel | DTM from cleaned corpus | label powerset |
| multilabel | LDA topics membership | label powerset |
As these approaches yielded poor performance, we simplified the labels into three labels corresponding to short term, long term and very long term.
| labels | input | model |
|---|---|---|
| multilabel (simple) | DTM from cleaned corpus | algorithm adaptation |
| multilabel (simple) | LDA topics membership | algorithm adaptation |
| multilabel (simple) | DTM from cleaned corpus | binary relevance (and variations) |
| multilabel (simple) | LDA topics membership | binary relevance (and variations) |
| multilabel (simple) | DTM from cleaned corpus | label powerset |
| multilabel (simple) | LDA topics membership | label powerset |
| multiclass | DTM from cleaned corpus | algorithm adaptation |
As these approaches led to poor performance, we tried to use the latest deep-learning model for natural language processing released by Google: BERT.
| labels | input | model |
|---|---|---|
| multilabel | raw corpus | Google's BERT |
| multilabel (simple) | raw corpus | Google's BERT |
The model performance remained poor. We hypothetized that this was due to the noise present in the raw corpus: email addresses, formatting from journals, etc. The next iteration of models was thus run on abstracts both for previous traditional approaches and BERT.
| labels | input | model |
|---|---|---|
| multilabel (simple) | DTM from abstracts | algorithm adaptation |
| multilabel (simple) | DTM from abstracts | binary relevance (and variations) |
| multilabel (simple) | raw abstract | Google's BERT |
| multiclass | raw abstract | Google's BERT |
The poor results of the different approaches applied point toward a rather difficult issue to assign the temporal scales of a study solely based on text-mining techniques or on deep NLP models. This is likely due because the spatial scale information is often tenuous in most studies and because the training set is at least two orders of magnitude lower than what is usually used in the deep NLP literature.