standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 7 of 9 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | semi-supervised classification - using unlabelled data to beat a learner trained on the labelled data alone - and the assumptions that have to hold for it to be possible at all Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | what the field's methods assume, how those assumptions relate to one another, and when unlabelled data actually helps Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | a taxonomy of semi-supervised classifiers, and the argument that the field's three named assumptions are one assumption under three definitions of 'similar' Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | critique Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | unlabelled data carrying information about the label distribution - when it does, and the fact that nobody can tell in advance whether it does Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | THE CATEGORY IS DECIDED BY A CHOICE THE PRACTITIONER USUALLY DOES NOT KNOW THEY ARE MAKING: `The concept of similarity we choose, often implicitly, dictates what constitutes a cluster` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | and the field's three named assumptions differ only in what they mean by `close` - smoothness says near in input space, low-density says in the same dense region, manifold says on the same low-dimensional surface Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | so all three are instances of the cluster assumption, which is itself the necessary condition for the whole enterprise: that p(x) carries information about p(y|x) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | A TAXONOMY PAPER THAT DIAGNOSES WHAT IS WRONG WITH TAXONOMIES: `Existing categorizations ... are typically relatively flat, thereby failing to capture similarities between different groups of methods. Furthermore, the categorizations are often fine-tuned towards existing work, making them less suited for the inclusion of new approaches.` Two named failure modes - too shallow to show kinship, and overfitted to the papers that existed when it was drawn. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE PROPOSED REPAIR IS STATED AS A DESIGN GOAL, NOT A RESULT: `we propose a new way to represent the spectrum ... we ATTEMPT to group them in a clear, FUTURE-PROOF way`. `attempt` and `future-proof` in one sentence - the second is a property no survey can demonstrate about itself at publication. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | THE FIELD'S OWN NAME FOR KNOWINGLY USING THE WRONG WORD: `in a slight abuse of notation`, used twice in this paper for two different acts - once to call lists `sets`, once to reassign X and x to random variables. Mathematics has a standard phrase for declaring a deliberate terminological error and continuing, and this survey uses it in a footnote and in body text without further comment. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | THE NECESSARY CONDITION CANNOT BE CHECKED. `if the data points ... cannot be meaningfully clustered, it is impossible for a semi-supervised learning method to improve on a supervised learning method` - and whether they can is exactly what cannot be established in advance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | stated twice over, at both levels: it is difficult to DEFINE the conditions under which an algorithm works, and `rarely straightforward to evaluate to what extent these conditions are satisfied` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GUARANTEE THAT UNLABELLED DATA WILL NOT DEGRADE PERFORMANCE - the method can do worse than ignoring the extra data, and no test tells you beforehand Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | and no method exists to choose the algorithm a priori, exactly as in supervised learning - so the practitioner picks the assumption and finds out afterwards Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | THE CENTRAL CLAIM ABOUT THE TAXONOMY IS UNFALSIFIABLE AT TIME OF WRITING: `allowing researchers and practitioners alike to gain insight into the way semi-supervised learning methods relate to each other`, built in a `future-proof way`. The paper's stated advantage over prior categorizations is that new methods will fit it - a claim only later work can test, and the same claim the superseded categorizations could have made. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the matching problem - find a subset of edges sharing no vertices - is taken from graph theory and used to pair unlabelled samples in a semi-supervised learner Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the published empirical comparisons are surveyed rather than a single one cited - eight data sets in one study, several neural methods on two image problems in another Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a field-level claim resting on the studies that happened to work; the answer reported is that NO ALGORITHM UNIFORMLY OUTPERFORMED THE OTHERS and relative performance varied with the amount of unlabelled data · outcome: failed | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | where degradation was observed, the condition producing it is isolated - a mismatch between the classes in the labelled and the unlabelled data Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: degradation being treated as unexplained noise; here it has a named cause that a practitioner can check for · outcome: held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | whether the conditions for a given method to work can be evaluated on a given dataset Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: nothing - it is 'rarely straightforward to evaluate to what extent these conditions are satisfied', which is why the necessary condition is not a test · outcome: failed | controls[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | cluster assumption Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cluster assumption | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | smoothness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: smoothness | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | low-density Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: low-density | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | manifold Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: manifold | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | local similarity measure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: local similarity measure | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | taxonomy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: taxonomy | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | inductive Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE TERM IS NOT IN THE QUOTE - the quote's former and latter terms are inductive and transductive methods, named in the sentence just before it ('between inductive and transductive methods'). That sentence is not quoted because reference-list text is spliced into its citation. also in: inductive | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | transductive Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE TERM IS NOT IN THE QUOTE - the quote's former and latter terms are inductive and transductive methods, named in the sentence just before it ('between inductive and transductive methods'). That sentence is not quoted because reference-list text is spliced into its citation. also in: transductive | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | self-training Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: self-training | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | self-learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: self-learning | concepts[9] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | sets Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sets | concepts[10] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | margin Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: margin | concepts[11] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | intrinsically semi-supervised Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: intrinsically semi-supervised | concepts[12] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Transductive graph-based methods Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Transductive graph-based methods | concepts[13] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | graph construction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: graph construction | concepts[14] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | graph weighting Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: graph weighting | concepts[15] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | pseudo-labelled data Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pseudo-labelled data | concepts[16] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Semi-supervised learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Semi-supervised learning | concepts[17] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | wrapper methods Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: wrapper methods | concepts[18] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | unsupervised preprocessing methods Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: unsupervised preprocessing methods | concepts[19] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | co-training Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: co-training | concepts[20] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | pseudo-labelled boosting methods Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pseudo-labelled boosting methods | concepts[21] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | inference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inference | concepts[22] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | two alternating steps of _training Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: two alternating steps of _training | concepts[23] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | pseudo-labelling Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pseudo-labelling | concepts[24] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | co-training → self-training Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. The paper says co-training extends self-training to multiple classifiers. Extension is not is-a, part-of, same-as, distinct-from, contrasted-with, operationalised-as, causes, or renamed-across-fields; the concept-edge schema has no extends type. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `similar` - THE LOAD-BEARING WORD OF THE WHOLE FIELD AND IT IS A CHOICE. Smoothness, low-density and manifold are three definitions of it, and the survey's contribution is showing they are the same assumption differently parameterised. WHICH ONE YOU PICKED IS USUALLY IMPLICIT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the cluster assumption - AS RE-READ HERE: not one assumption among several but the genus of which the other three are species, and equivalent to the necessary condition that p(x) carries information about p(y|x) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `semi-supervised learning works` - AS THE SURVEY IS FORCED TO QUALIFY IT: it can help, it can do nothing, and it can DEGRADE performance, with no way to know which in advance. The literature's record of the third case is described as UNDER-REPORTED Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `sets` - A DECLARED TYPE ERROR, KEPT ON PURPOSE: `the collections of data points referred to here are technically lists. However, following common usage, in this survey, we refer to them as ‘sets’ and, in a slight abuse of notation, apply standard set-theoretic concepts to them.` The authors know the word is wrong, say so in a footnote, and use it anyway because the field does. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `abuse of notation` IS USED TWICE IN THIS PAPER FOR TWO DIFFERENT ACTS. The second is symbol reuse: `we use X and x to denote random variables and their realizations, respectively, rather than data points` - the same symbols carry a new meaning from that point on. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `inductive` / `transductive` - the split is defined by WHAT THE METHOD RETURNS, not by how it works: `the former attempt to find a classification model, whereas the latter are solely concerned with obtaining label predictions for the given unlabelled data points`. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | 'margin' - ONE TERM, TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF OBJECT, AND THE SURVEY RECORDS BOTH WITHOUT CHOOSING: 'the _margin_, which is defined as the distance between the decision boundary and the data points closest to it. The term is also commonly used to describe the area extruding from the decision boundary in which no data points lie.' A SCALAR AND A REGION. Not two readings of one quantity - two different types, so 'maximise the margin' and 'lies within the margin' are grammatical with different referents, and only one of them can be a number. This record already carries the survey's declared type error over 'sets', kept on purpose, and its two senses of 'abuse of notation'; this is the same survey's third type-level observation, and the only one it does not flag as its own. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `pseudo-labelled data` - A NAME WHOSE PREFIX CARRIES THE ONLY WARNING. `Quotation withheld` `pseudo-` is doing all the epistemic work: the data is treated exactly like labelled data by the algorithm, and only the name records that the labels are the model's own guesses. Drop the prefix in a citation and the caution is gone with it. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Semi-supervised learning - a machine-learning branch that performs tasks using both labelled and unlabelled data Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Wrapper methods - pseudo-label unlabelled data externally while the supervised learner remains unaware of label provenance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Unsupervised preprocessing methods - use unlabelled data for features, clustering, or initial parameters but give the classifier only original labels Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Intrinsically semi-supervised - no intermediate step and no supervised base learner Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Co-training - self-training extended to multiple classifiers that learn from one another's most confident predictions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[12] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Pseudo-labelled boosting methods - sequential ensembles whose classifiers use labels plus earlier classifiers' confident unlabelled predictions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[13] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Inference - the final transductive graph-based phase, where the graph assigns labels to unlabelled data points Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[14] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Training in wrapper methods - fitting classifiers on labelled and possibly prior pseudo-labelled data Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[15] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Pseudo-labelling in wrapper methods - turning confident predictions for unlabelled objects into labels for the next iteration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[16] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the presentation of smoothness, low-density and manifold as separate assumptions, when they are one assumption under three definitions of similarity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the semi-supervised literature's record of when its methods fail, whose prevalence is described as likely under-reported Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → Oliver et al.'s finding that degradation appeared only under a class mismatch between the labelled and unlabelled sets Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | smoothness —is-a→ cluster assumption Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'the semi-supervised learning assumptions' = the smoothness, low-density and manifold assumptions of the previous sentence; is-a is loose. also in: smoothness · cluster assumption | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | manifold —is-a→ cluster assumption Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span introduces the cluster assumption as an additional assumption beside manifolds; is-a is loose. also in: manifold · cluster assumption | concept_edges[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | self-training —same-as→ self-learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: Given parenthetically and without preference, in a sentence that cites a survey whose own title uses a THIRD name - 'Self-labeled techniques for semi-supervised learning…'. Three names for one method inside one sentence, and the paper treats the multiplicity as unremarkable. · the relation stated: one method, two names, offered parenthetically and without preference also in: self-training · self-learning | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | inductive —distinct-from→ transductive Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: The top-level split of the taxonomy, and the differentiating property is the OUTPUT TYPE - a model versus a label vector. · the relation stated: the taxonomy's top-level split, and the differentiating property is the OUTPUT TYPE - a model versus a label vector also in: inductive · transductive | concept_edges[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | graph construction —part-of→ Transductive graph-based methods Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: 'consist of' is in the containment cue list, so this edge is cue-tested. Weight 0.9 rather than 1.0 - 'GENERALLY consist of' is the survey hedging across the family it is describing. | concept_edges[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | graph weighting —part-of→ Transductive graph-based methods Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: Second of the three steps, same sentence, same hedge. also in: graph weighting · Transductive graph-based methods | concept_edges[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | inference —part-of→ Transductive graph-based methods Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: The survey says these methods generally have the three steps, so the paper-level hedge is 0.9. also in: inference · Transductive graph-based methods | concept_edges[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | pseudo-labelling —part-of→ wrapper methods Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: The procedure usually has these two alternating steps; weight 0.9 preserves that hedge.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'The procedure ... pseudo-labelling step'; 'wrapper methods' is named only in the preceding text. also in: pseudo-labelling · wrapper methods | concept_edges[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | unsupervised preprocessing methods —distinct-from→ wrapper methods Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The paper explicitly contrasts what the supervised classifier receives under the two method families. | concept_edges[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the concept of similarity chosen, often implicitly, dictates what counts as a cluster Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THREE NAMES, ONE ASSUMPTION: smoothness, low-density and manifold boil down to different definitions of the similarity between points Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | if the data cannot be meaningfully clustered, semi-supervised learning cannot improve on supervised learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | it is impossible to guarantee that adding unlabelled data will not degrade performance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | no algorithm uniformly outperformed the others, and relative performance varied with the amount of unlabelled data Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | where degradation was observed it had a named condition - a mismatch between the classes present in the labelled data and those in the unlabelled data Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | that similar points tend to belong to the same group - and the survey argues the field's other assumptions are more specific instances of it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cluster assumption | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | similarity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: similarity | content_tags.statistics[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | unlabelled data Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: unlabelled data | content_tags.variables[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.