Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper describes the EurekaSeek bibliometric technique for automated linked‐literature analysis. The MEDLINE database of biomedical literature is iteratively searched in order to identify research opportunities in the form of conceptual linkages between terms. As a tool for identifying undiscovered public knowledge, EurekaSeek is a variation on the techniques of Swanson and Smalheiser. EurekaSeek uses medical subject headings instead of text analysis in a fully automated search process, thereby eliminating the reliance on expert input during the process of linking literatures. In this paper, the EurekaSeek process is tested by retroactively examining the co‐occurrence of terms in the published literature. The hypothesis tested in this paper is whether this tool, had it existed in the past, could have identified conceptual linkages that occurred only later in the literature. In addition, EurekaSeek is compared against a process that considers all potential term‐to‐term relationships. The list of terms that EurekaSeek produces is a subset of all potential linked literature terms. The experiment shows that EurekaSeek produces a higher percentage of likely hypotheses than when all terms are considered. While the proportion of identified linkages generated is still too small for the process to be a practical aid to research, statistically significant results were achieved. Metaphorically speaking, EurekaSeek identifies a higher proportion of needles per haystack.
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 | 0.022 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.002 |
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".