Authorship Attribution via Network Motifs Identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concepts and methods of complex networks can be used to analyse texts at their different complexity levels. Examples of natural language processing (NLP) tasks studied via topological analysis of networks are keyword identification, automatic extractive summarization and authorship attribution. Even though a myriad of network measurements have been applied to study the authorship attribution problem, the use of motifs for text analysis has been restricted to a few works. The goal of this paper is to apply the concept of motifs, recurrent interconnection patterns, in the authorship attribution task. The absolute frequencies of all thirteen directed motifs with three nodes were extracted from the co-occurrence networks and used as classification features. The effectiveness of these features was verified with four machine learning methods. The results show that motifs are able to distinguish the writing style of different authors. In our best scenario, 57.5% of the books were correctly classified. The chance baseline for this problem is 12.5%. In addition, we have found that function words play an important role in these recurrent patterns. Taken together, our findings suggest that motifs should be further explored in other related linguistic tasks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".