Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper we describe recent work toprovide a filtering service for readers interested in medically related news articles from online news sources. The first task is to filter out the nonmedical news articles. The remaining articles, the medically related ones, are then assigned MeSH headings for context and then categorized further by intended audience level (medical expert, medically knowledgeable, no particular medical background needed). The effectiveness goals include both accuracy and efficiency. That is, the process must be robust and efficient enough to scan significant data sets dynamically for the user at the same time as provide accurate results. Our primary effectiveness goal is to provide high accuracy at the medical/nonmedical filtering step. The secondary concern is the effectiveness of the subsequent grouping of the medical articles into reader groups with MeSH contexts for each paper. While it is relatively easy for people to judge that an article is nonmedical or medical in content it is relatively difficult to judge that any given article is of interest to certain types of readers, based on the medical language used. Consequently the goal is not necessarily to remove articles of higher readership level but rather to provide more information for the reader.
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 | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.009 |
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".