Adjutant: an R-based tool to support topic discovery for systematic and literature reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Summary Adjutant is an open-source, interactive, and R-based application to support mining PubMed for a systematic or a literature review. Given a PubMed-compatible search query, Adjutant downloads the relevant articles and allows the user to perform an unsupervised clustering analysis to identify data-driven topic clusters. Users can also sample documents using different strategies to obtain a more manageable dataset for further analysis. Adjutant makes explicit trade-offs between speed and accuracy, which are modifiable by the user, such that a complete analysis of several thousand documents can take a few minutes. All analytic datasets generated by Adjutant are saved, allowing users to easily conduct other downstream analyses that Adjutant does not explicitly support. Availability and Implementation Adjutant is implemented in R, using Shiny, and is available at https://github.com/amcrisan/Adjutant
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 | 0.019 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.148 | 0.061 |
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".