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
For a long time, PageRank has been widely used for authority computation and has been adopted as a solid baseline for evaluating social influence related applications. However, when measuring the authority of network nodes, the traditional PageRank method does not take the nodes’ prior knowledge into consideration. Also, the connection between PageRank and social influence modeling methods is not clearly established. To that end, this article provides a focused study on understanding PageRank as well as the relationship between PageRank and social influence analysis. Along this line, we first propose a linear social influence model and reveal that this model generalizes the PageRank-based authority computation by introducing some constraints. Then, we show that the authority computation by PageRank can be enhanced if exploiting more reasonable constraints (e.g., from prior knowledge). Next, to deal with the computational challenge of linear model with general constraints, we provide an upper bound for identifying nodes with top authorities. Moreover, we extend the proposed linear model for better measuring the authority of the given node sets, and we also demonstrate the way to quickly identify the top authoritative node sets. Finally, extensive experimental evaluations on four real-world networks validate the effectiveness of the proposed linear model with respect to different constraint settings. The results show that the methods with more reasonable constraints can lead to better ranking and recommendation performance. Meanwhile, the upper bounds formed by PageRank values could be used to quickly locate the nodes and node sets with the highest authorities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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