Character Selection During Interactive Taxonomic Identification: “Best Characters”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software interfaces for interactive multiple-entry taxonomic identification (polyclaves) sometimes provide a “best character” or “separation” coefficient, to guide the user to choose a character that could most effectively reduce the number of identification steps required. The coefficient could be particularly helpful when difficult or expensive tasks are needed for forensic identification, and in very large databases, uses that appear likely to increase in importance. Several current systems also provide tools to develop taxonomies or single-entry identification keys, with a variety of coefficients that are appropriate to that purpose. For the identification task, however, information theory neatly applies, and provides the most appropriate coefficient. To our knowledge, Delta-Intkey is the only currently available system that uses a coefficient related to information theory, and it is currently being reimplemented, which may allow for improvement. We describe two improvements to the algorithm used by Delta-Intkey. The first improves transparency as the number of remaining taxa decreases, by normalizing the range of the coefficient to [0,1]. The second concerns numeric ranges, which require consistent treatment of sub-intervals and their end-points. A stand-alone Bestchar program for categorical data is provided, in the Python and R languages. The source code is freely available and dedicated to the Public Domain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.134 | 0.045 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".