Graph Distances and Clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a view on graph clustering, we present a definition of vertex-to-vertex distance which is based on shared connectivity. We argue that vertices sharing more connections are closer to each other than vertices sharing fewer connections. Our thesis is centered on the widely accepted notion that strong clusters are formed by high levels of induced subgraph density, where subgraphs represent clusters. We argue these clusters are formed by grouping vertices deemed to be similar in their connectivity. At the cluster level (induced subgraph level), our thesis translates into low mean intra-cluster distances. Our definition differs from the usual shortest-path geodesic distance. In this article, we compare three distance measures from the literature. Our benchmark is the accuracy of each measure's reflection of intra-cluster density, when aggregated (averaged) at the cluster level. We conduct our tests on synthetic graphs generated using the planted partition model, where clusters and intra-cluster density are known in advance. We examine correlations between mean intra-cluster distances and intra-cluster densities. Our numerical experiments show that Jaccard and Otsuka-Ochiai offer very accurate measures of density, when averaged over vertex pairs within clusters.
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 | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".