Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Fine-Tuning Large Language Models for Scientific Text Classification: A Comparative Study

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A model pretrained on science text classifies scientific papers better than general or biomedical models.

desk verdict A straightforward BERT-family benchmark on WoS whose data-split accounting and inconsistent tables make the reported accuracies unverifiable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00098 v2 pith:WNYA6XYV submitted 2024-11-27 cs.CL

Zhyar Rzgar K Rostam , Gábor Kertész This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords domain-specifictextclassificationfine-tuningLLMstransformer-basedlanguagemodelsrepresentationLLMperformanceevaluationSciBERTscientificWebofSciencedataset
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the pretraining corpus, not just the architecture, decides how well a transformer classifies scientific texts. It fine-tunes four publicly available models—BERT, SciBERT, BioBERT, and BlueBERT—on three Web of Science subsets, using either paper abstracts or keyword lists as input. Across the six experimental conditions, the science-pretrained SciBERT achieves the highest or tied-highest accuracy and F1, while the general-purpose BERT and the biomedical-pretrained models lag by one to a few points. If the finding holds, it gives practitioners a concrete default choice for scientific literature classification and confirms that domain-matched pretraining is worth the extra effort.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a controlled fine-tuning comparison across four pretrained transformer encoders: general English BERT, science-pretrained SciBERT, and biomedical-pretrained BioBERT and BlueBERT. All four share the same classification head and training protocol—AdamW with learning rate $2\times10^{-5}$, linear warmup, 20 epochs—so the only deliberate differences are the pretraining corpus and the input representation (abstract text vs. keyword lists). The comparison is carried out on three nested subsets of the WoS-46985 benchmark, which share the same seven parent scientific domains but differ in category granularity and size. This setup is meant to isolate what domain-matched pretraining adds on top of a fixed architecture and to measure how much classification signal each input type carries.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to re-run all four models on the three WoS subsets with a single clean random split whose train, test, and validation sizes sum exactly to the dataset total and are disjoint; if SciBERT does not match or beat the other models on all six conditions, the claim of consistent superiority fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that domain-specific pretraining is the decisive factor in scientific text classification. On the paper's own numbers, SciBERT—the BERT variant pretrained on a large scientific corpus—reaches 87% accuracy on WoS-46985 abstracts versus 85% for BERT and 86% for both biomedical models, and 80% on keywords versus 79% for BERT (tied with BlueBERT). The pattern repeats on the smaller subsets: 92% versus 91% on WoS-11967 abstracts, 87% versus 84–86% on its keyword version, and 98% with abstracts (tied with BioBERT) and 94% with keywords on WoS-5736. The paper reads these results as showing that matching the pretraining corpus to the target domain matters more than the choice among transformer architectures, and that abstract-based inputs consistently carry more classification signal than keyword-only inputs. It also positions the fine-tuned LLMs above the earlier deep learning baselines and the hierarchical HDLTex model reported in the literature.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the train/test/validation split is clean and disjoint; the sizes in Table IV sum to more than the dataset totals (for example, 48,865 versus 46,985 for WoS-46985), and the paper never reconciles this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For scientific paper classification, the safe default is a science-pretrained encoder such as SciBERT: it matches or beats the general and biomedical models on every condition the paper tests.
  • Abstract-only pipelines should be preferred over keyword-only pipelines: the gap is consistently 4–7 accuracy points in favor of abstracts across all models and datasets.
  • On these benchmarks, fine-tuned transformers displace the earlier deep learning state of the art: the best LLM accuracy on WoS-46985 abstracts (87%) exceeds the 76.58% reported for HDLTex.
  • Domain match to the label space matters more than biomedical specialization: BioBERT and BlueBERT do not consistently beat general BERT, while SciBERT's broader scientific pretraining transfers across all seven WoS parent domains.
  • Because the fine-tuning protocol is held fixed, the ranking differences are attributed to pretraining corpus, not to architecture or hyperparameter choice.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct extension the paper does not run is concatenating abstracts and keywords: given the consistent 4–7 point gap, it is worth testing whether combined input adds signal or just noise.
  • The split arithmetic in Table IV is inconsistent (for example, WoS-46985: 37,588 + 9,397 + 1,880 = 48,865, not 46,985), so the ranking should be re-run on a clean, disjoint split before the accuracy numbers are taken as final.
  • The domain-match principle predicts a testable specialization ladder: a model pretrained on a tightly matched subcorpus, such as materials-science text, should beat SciBERT on that subdomain even if it loses on general science.
  • With only single runs and fixed hyperparameters, margins of one to three points could plausibly flip under per-model tuning or across seeds; the paper's qualitative ranking is robust only if it survives those variations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper fine-tunes four transformer-based language models (BERT, SciBERT, BioBERT, and BlueBERT) on three Web of Science derived datasets (WoS-46985, WoS-11967, WoS-5736), using either paper abstracts or keyword lists as input, and reports accuracy and F1 metrics for scientific text classification. The authors conclude that domain-specific models, especially SciBERT, consistently outperform general-purpose BERT and the biomedical models, and they compare their results with classical deep learning baselines from the literature.

Significance. If the conclusions are supported, the paper would provide a useful empirical benchmark on the value of domain-adaptive pretraining for scientific text classification, with a clear experimental design across two input representations and three dataset sizes. The authors provide a public repository link, use a standardized fine-tuning protocol, and explicitly acknowledge limitations such as fixed hyperparameters and restricted dataset scope. These are real strengths. However, the central claim of consistent SciBERT superiority is currently undermined by unresolved arithmetic inconsistencies in the data split (Table IV), conflicting accuracy numbers between Tables VI and VII, and single-run results without variance or significance testing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.A, Table IV] The train/test/validation split counts do not add up to the stated dataset totals: for WoS-46985, 37,588 + 9,397 + 1,880 = 48,865, which is 1,880 more than the 46,985 total; for WoS-11967, 9,573 + 2,394 + 479 = 12,446, exceeding 11,967 by 479; and for WoS-5736, 4,588 + 1,148 + 230 = 5,966, exceeding 5,736 by 230. The text states that validation is "20% of the test set," which implies that validation examples are carved out of the test set without reducing the reported test count. As a result, the test set used for Tables VI and VII may overlap with the validation set used for model monitoring, creating a potential leakage path that could inflate absolute accuracies and bias the relative comparison. The paper never reconciles this arithmetic inconsistency or specifies the exact split procedure, and the repository is not referenced with a commit or code excerpt that would allow verification. Please provide the exact partition code/seed and confirm that training, validation, and test sets are disjoint, or recompute all results on a properly documented split.
  2. [Tables VI and VII, §V.E] The accuracy values for the same experimental conditions differ between Table VI and Table VII. For WoS-5736 abstracts, Table VI reports BERT 97%, SciBERT 98%, BioBERT 98%, and BlueBERT 96%, while Table VII reports BERT 96%, SciBERT 97%, BioBERT 98%, and BlueBERT 97%. The text in §V.E agrees with Table VI, not Table VII. This is not a formatting-only discrepancy: under Table VII, BioBERT ties or exceeds SciBERT on WoS-5736 abstracts, which directly contradicts the abstract's claim that "SciBERT demonstrated superior performance... consistently surpassing other models such as BERT, BioBERT, and BlueBERT." The authors must reconcile these numbers and state which table reports the final test-set results.
  3. [§V, Tables VI and VII] All results are reported as single-point estimates from one run, with no error bars, multiple seeds, or statistical significance tests. The differences that drive the central claim are often 1–2 percentage points (e.g., WoS-46985 abstracts: SciBERT 87% vs. BioBERT/BlueBERT 86%; WoS-46985 keywords: SciBERT 80% vs. BioBERT 79%), and in at least one case (WoS-5736 abstracts) BioBERT's micro F1 of 0.9773 exceeds SciBERT's 0.9756 even though both accuracies are 98%. Without variance estimates or repeated runs, the evidence does not support the strong claim that SciBERT "consistently outperforms" or "consistently surpasses" the other models. Please report means and standard deviations over multiple seeds, or apply an appropriate statistical test for classifier comparison.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table V] The warmup steps value is written as "1×10−4 steps," which is not an integer step count; this should be clarified (e.g., as a fraction of total steps or as an actual number of warmup steps).
  2. [Table VI, WoS-46985 Keywords, BlueBERT] The BlueBERT row lists Micro Precision as 0.7879 while Micro F1 and Micro Recall are both 0.7987; this is internally inconsistent and likely a typo that should be corrected.
  3. [§V.E] The text states that "each model achieved its peak performance prior to the 10th epoch," but the preceding sentences describe BERT reaching 0.98 "by the final epoch" and BioBERT reaching 0.99 as a "final micro F1 score"; this is contradictory and should be clarified.
  4. [§IV.A] The phrase "the dataset randomized" should be "the datasets were randomized," and the sentence "Each dataset... underwent... to extract four primary attributes" should be reworded for grammatical correctness.
  5. [§VII] The phrase "domain-adaptive pertaining" should read "domain-adaptive pretraining."
  6. [References] Reference [27] contains a stray comma in the author list ("K. Jafari Meimandi, , M. S. Gerber"), and the formatting of some author names and accents is inconsistent; these should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SciBERT-superiority claim is an empirical benchmark result, not a derivation from self-defined inputs.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical comparative benchmark. The central claim, that domain-specific SciBERT outperforms BERT, BioBERT, and BlueBERT on WoS-derived classification tasks, is read directly from held-out test-set accuracy and F1 measurements in Tables VI and VII; no fitted parameter is used to define the outcome, and no equation is derived from an assumption equivalent to the conclusion. The only self-referential elements are citations to the original model papers (BERT, SciBERT, BioBERT, BlueBERT) for the pretrained checkpoints and to Kowsari et al. for the WoS dataset; these are external, verifiable resources, not arguments whose validity depends on the present paper. The Limitations section (Section VIII) candidly notes standardized hyperparameters and WoS-only scope, which are threats to generalizability, not circularity. The Table IV split arithmetic (e.g., 37,588 + 9,397 + 1,880 = 48,865 > 46,985) and the statement that validation is '20% of the test set' indicate a data-integrity or leakage concern that could undermine the reported accuracy comparisons, but this is an empirical reproducibility problem, not a self-definitional or self-citation circularity. No pattern from the enumerated circularity kinds is present, so the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. Its empirical claims rest on the dataset's correctness, comparability of literature baselines, and the consistency of the training setup, plus an internally inconsistent split assumption.

free parameters (4)
  • learning_rate = 2e-5
    Set identically for all models; no per-model tuning, so the comparison treats it as a fixed experimental constant.
  • epochs = 20
    Fixed for all models; the paper notes some models peak before epoch 10, so final-epoch reporting may not reflect each model's best state.
  • warmup_steps = 1e-4 (unclear units)
    Reported as '1x10^-4 steps' in Section IV-C; ambiguous whether this is a fraction of total steps or an absolute step count, and it affects optimization.
  • batch_size
    Not reported anywhere; required to reproduce training runs, so it functions as an unstated chosen parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The WoS dataset labels and category structure are correct and consistent across the three subsets.
    All accuracy and F1 numbers assume the Kowsari et al. labels are ground truth; the paper does not audit label quality or category overlaps.
  • domain assumption The literature baseline scores in Table VII were computed under the same train/test split and preprocessing.
    The LLM results are compared directly to numbers from Kowsari et al., but those baselines are not re-run on the authors' split, so split or preprocessing differences could explain part of the gap.
  • domain assumption A single shared hyperparameter configuration is a fair protocol for comparing all four models.
    No per-model search or early stopping; if models have different optimal settings, the ranking could change.
  • domain assumption The 80/20 split followed by carving validation out of the test set leaves a clean held-out test set.
    This is the implicit assumption behind Table IV, but the table's arithmetic contradicts it, so the assumption is not established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fine-Tuning Large Language Models for Scientific Text Classification: A Comparative Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WNYA6XYV

@misc{pith2026241200098,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fine-Tuning Large Language Models for Scientific Text Classification: A Comparative Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WNYA6XYV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00098}
}
read the original abstract

The exponential growth of online textual content across diverse domains has necessitated advanced methods for automated text classification. Large Language Models (LLMs) based on transformer architectures have shown significant success in this area, particularly in natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, general-purpose LLMs often struggle with domain-specific content, such as scientific texts, due to unique challenges like specialized vocabulary and imbalanced data. In this study, we fine-tune four state-of-the-art LLMs BERT, SciBERT, BioBERT, and BlueBERT on three datasets derived from the WoS-46985 dataset to evaluate their performance in scientific text classification. Our experiments reveal that domain-specific models, particularly SciBERT, consistently outperform general-purpose models in both abstract-based and keyword-based classification tasks. Additionally, we compare our achieved results with those reported in the literature for deep learning models, further highlighting the advantages of LLMs, especially when utilized in specific domains. The findings emphasize the importance of domain-specific adaptations for LLMs to enhance their effectiveness in specialized text classification tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00098 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Performance evaluation on the WoS-46985 dataset for BERT, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance evaluation on the WoS-5736 dataset for BERT, SciBERT, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Efficient Scientific Full Text Classification: The Case of EICAT Impact Assessments

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Feeding a small selected subset of sentences, rather than a full paper, improves and accelerates EICAT impact classification with both BERT and Llama models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Exploring small language models with prompt-learning paradigm for efficient domain-specific text classifica- tion,

    H. Luo, P. Liu, and S. Esping, “Exploring small language models with prompt-learning paradigm for efficient domain-specific text classifica- tion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14779, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Multilabel text classification with label-dependent representation,

    R. Alfaro, H. Allende-Cid, and H. Allende, “Multilabel text classification with label-dependent representation,”Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 6, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Survey of fake news datasets and detection methods in european and asian languages,

    M. Amjad, S. Butt, A. Zhila, G. Sidorov, L. Chanona-Hernandez, and A. Gelbukh, “Survey of fake news datasets and detection methods in european and asian languages,”Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 185–204, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Novel deep learning approach for sci- entific literature classification,

    M. M. Ahanger and M. A. Wani, “Novel deep learning approach for sci- entific literature classification,” in2022 9th International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom), pp. 249– 254, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Benchmarking for biomedical natural language processing tasks with a domain specific albert,

    U. Naseem, A. G. Dunn, M. Khushi, and J. Kim, “Benchmarking for biomedical natural language processing tasks with a domain specific albert,”BMC bioinformatics, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 144, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    A brief survey of text classification methods,

    Q. Jiao, “A brief survey of text classification methods,” in2023 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Information Technology, Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (ICIBA), vol. 3, pp. 1384–1389, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    A survey of text classification with transformers: How wide? how large? how long? how accurate? how expensive? how safe?,

    J. Fields, K. Chovanec, and P. Madiraju, “A survey of text classification with transformers: How wide? how large? how long? how accurate? how expensive? how safe?,”IEEE Access, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Survey of pre-trained models for natural language processing,

    J. Peng and K. Han, “Survey of pre-trained models for natural language processing,” in2021 International Conference on Electronic Communi- cations, Internet of Things and Big Data (ICEIB), pp. 277–280, IEEE, 2021

    2021

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Text clas- sification via large language models,

    X. Sun, X. Li, J. Li, F. Wu, S. Guo, T. Zhang, and G. Wang, “Text clas- sification via large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08377, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A survey of large language models,

    W. X. Zhao, K. Zhou, J. Li, T. Tang, X. Wang, Y . Hou, Y . Min, B. Zhang, J. Zhang, Z. Dong,et al., “A survey of large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cross-domain limi- tations of neural models on biomedical relation classification,

    I. Alimova, E. Tutubalina, and S. I. Nikolenko, “Cross-domain limi- tations of neural models on biomedical relation classification,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 1432–1439, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Finbert: Financial sentiment analysis with pre-trained lan- guage models,

    D. Araci, “Finbert: Financial sentiment analysis with pre-trained lan- guage models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10063, 2019

    1908 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Sentiment analysis with neural models for hungarian,

    L. J. Laki and Z. G. Yang, “Sentiment analysis with neural models for hungarian,”Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, vol. 20, no. 5, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Topic modeling: a comprehensive review,

    P. Kherwa and P. Bansal, “Topic modeling: a comprehensive review,” EAI Endorsed transactions on scalable information systems, vol. 7, no. 24, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Inte- grating text classification into topic discovery using semantic embedding models,

    A. L. Lezama-S ´anchez, M. Tovar Vidal, and J. A. Reyes-Ortiz, “Inte- grating text classification into topic discovery using semantic embedding models,”Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 17, p. 9857, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Language model behavior: A compre- hensive survey,

    T. A. Chang and B. K. Bergen, “Language model behavior: A compre- hensive survey,”Computational Linguistics, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 293–350, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Large language models for text classification: From zero-shot learning to fine-tuning,

    Y . Chae and T. Davidson, “Large language models for text classification: From zero-shot learning to fine-tuning,”Open Science Foundation, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Scibert: A pretrained language model for scientific text,

    I. Beltagy, K. Lo, and A. Cohan, “Scibert: A pretrained language model for scientific text,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10676, 2019

    1903 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Biobert: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining,

    J. Lee, W. Yoon, S. Kim, D. Kim, S. Kim, C. H. So, and J. Kang, “Biobert: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining,”Bioinformatics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1234–1240, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Transfer learning in biomedical natural lan- guage processing: An evaluation of bert and elmo on ten benchmarking datasets,

    Y . Peng, S. Yan, and Z. Lu, “Transfer learning in biomedical natural lan- guage processing: An evaluation of bert and elmo on ten benchmarking datasets,” inProceedings of the 2019 Workshop on Biomedical Natural Language Processing (BioNLP 2019), pp. 58–65, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Finbert: A pre-trained financial language representation model for financial text mining,

    Z. Liu, D. Huang, K. Huang, Z. Li, and J. Zhao, “Finbert: A pre-trained financial language representation model for financial text mining,” in Proceedings of the twenty-ninth international conference on interna- tional joint conferences on artificial intelligence, pp. 4513–4519, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Structured information extraction from complex scientific text with fine-tuned large language models,

    A. Dunn, J. Dagdelen, N. Walker, S. Lee, A. S. Rosen, G. Ceder, K. Pers- son, and A. Jain, “Structured information extraction from complex scientific text with fine-tuned large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05238, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Matscibert: A materials domain language model for text mining and information extraction,

    T. Gupta, M. Zaki, N. A. Krishnan, and Mausam, “Matscibert: A materials domain language model for text mining and information extraction,”npj Computational Materials, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 102, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Medibiodeberta: Biomedical lan- guage model with continuous learning and intermediate fine-tuning,

    E. Kim, Y . Jeong, and M.-s. Choi, “Medibiodeberta: Biomedical lan- guage model with continuous learning and intermediate fine-tuning,” IEEE Access, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Hdltex: Hierarchical deep learning for text classification,

    K. Kowsari, D. E. Brown, M. Heidarysafa, K. Jafari Meimandi, , M. S. Gerber, and L. E. Barnes, “Hdltex: Hierarchical deep learning for text classification,” inMachine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), 2017 16th IEEE International Conference on, IEEE, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    A lightweight biomedical named entity recognition with pre-trained model,

    Y . Gou and C. Jie, “A lightweight biomedical named entity recognition with pre-trained model,” in2023 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Data Science and Computer Application (ICDSCA), pp. 117–121, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Named entity recognition using transfer learning with the fusion of pre-trained scibert language model and bi-directional long short term memory,

    M. S. Usha, A. M. Smrity, and S. Das, “Named entity recognition using transfer learning with the fusion of pre-trained scibert language model and bi-directional long short term memory,” in2022 25th International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT), pp. 46...

    2022

  22. [30]

    A comprehensive survey on deep learning for relation extraction: Recent advances and new frontiers,

    X. Zhao, Y . Deng, M. Yang, L. Wang, R. Zhang, H. Cheng, W. Lam, Y . Shen, and R. Xu, “A comprehensive survey on deep learning for relation extraction: Recent advances and new frontiers,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02051, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    S2orc: The semantic scholar open research corpus,

    K. Lo, L. L. Wang, M. Neumann, R. Kinney, and D. S. Weld, “S2orc: The semantic scholar open research corpus,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.02782, 2019

    1911 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A survey of active learning for text classi- fication using deep neural networks,

    C. Schr ¨oder and A. Niekler, “A survey of active learning for text classi- fication using deep neural networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07267, 2020

    2008 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Recurrent convolutional neural networks for text classification,

    S. Lai, L. Xu, K. Liu, and J. Zhao, “Recurrent convolutional neural networks for text classification,” inProceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 2267–2273, 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    Sequential short-text classification with recurrent and convolutional neural networks,

    J. Y . Lee and F. Dernoncourt, “Sequential short-text classification with recurrent and convolutional neural networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.03827, 2016

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.