Link spam target detection using page farms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it