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
Despite the wide applicability of clustering methods, their evaluation remains a problem. In this paper, we present a metric for the evaluation of clustering methods. The data set to be clustered is viewed as a sample from a larger population, with clustering quality measured in terms of our predicted ability to discriminate between members of this population. We measure this property by training a classifier to recognize each cluster and measuring the accuracy of this classifier, normalized by a notion of expected accuracy. To demonstrate the applicability of this metric we apply it to Web queries. We investigated a commercially oriented data set of 1700 queries and a general data set of 4000 queries. Both sets are taken from the logs of a commercial Web search engine. Clustering is based on the contents of search engine result pages generated by executing the queries on the search engine from which they were taken. Multiple clustering algorithms are crossed with various weighting schemes to produce multiple clusterings of each query set. Our metric is used evaluate these clusterings. The results on the commercially oriented data set are compared to two pre-existing manual labelings, and are also used in an ad clickthrough experiment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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