Social Network Analysis on Name Disambiguation and More
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
Name variants are ubiquitous in real world due typographical errors (e.g., "Forschungszentrum Julich" vs. "Forschungszentrum Julich"), abbreviated, imcomplete, or missing information (e.g., "R. E. Ellis" vs. "Randy E. Ellis"), lack of standard name formatting convention (e.g., "Spike Jonze" vs. "Jones, Spike"), and their combinations. In this paper, we project this name disambiguation problem to graph representation, and then analyze graphs using social network analysis. In particular, we used real duplicate name entities that we manually verifed from ACM digital library. Then, using various string similarity metrics and additional information (i.e., co-author names, titles, and venues), we analyze the effectiveness of string similarity metrics and additional information based on social network analysis. Through our experimental validation, name disambiguation problem can be analyzed in graphical, visual manner.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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