MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794223847 · doi:10.1002/asi.24000

A new approach to web co‐link analysis

2018· article· en· W2794223847 on OpenAlexaff
Liwen Vaughan, Anton Ninkov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb visibility and informetrics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLink (geometry)Link analysisComputer scienceData linkVariety (cybernetics)Data scienceWorld Wide WebData miningComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous web co‐link studies have analyzed a wide variety of websites ranging from those in the academic and business arena to those dealing with politics and governments. Such studies uncover rich information about these organizations. In recent years, however, there has been a dearth of co‐link analysis, mainly due to the lack of sources from which co‐link data can be collected directly. Although several commercial services such as Alexa provide inlink data, none provide co‐link data. We propose a new approach to web co‐link analysis that can alleviate this problem so that researchers can continue to mine the valuable information contained in co‐link data. The proposed approach has two components: (a) generating co‐link data from inlink data using a computer program; (b) analyzing co‐link data at the site level in addition to the page level that previous co‐link analyses have used. The site‐level analysis has the potential of expanding co‐link data sources. We tested this proposed approach by analyzing a group of websites focused on vaccination using Moz inlink data. We found that the approach is feasible, as we were able to generate co‐link data from inlink data and analyze the co‐link data with multidimensional scaling.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designSimulation or modeling · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods · Empirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information Science and TechnologySame topicWeb visibility and informetricsCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207