Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, most popular Web search engines adopt some link-based ranking methods such as PageRank. Driven by the huge potential benefit of improving rankings of Web pages, many tricks have been attempted to boost page rankings. The most common way, which is known as link spam, is to make up some artificially designed link structures. Detecting link spam effectively is a big challenge. In this article, we develop novel and effective detection methods for link spam target pages using page farms. The essential idea is intuitive: whether a page is the beneficiary of link spam is reflected by how it collects its PageRank score. Technically, how a target page collects its PageRank score is modeled by a page farm, which consists of pages contributing a major portion of the PageRank score of the target page. We propose two spamicity measures based on page farms. They can be used as an effective measure to check whether the pages are link spam target pages. An empirical study using a newly available real dataset strongly suggests that our method is effective. It outperforms the state-of-the-art methods like SpamRank and SpamMass in both precision and recall.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".