Bibliographic record
Abstract
Near-duplicate documents are particularly common in news media corpora. Editors often update wirefeed articles to address space constraints in print editions or to add local context; journalists often lightly modify previous articles with new information or minor corrections. Near-duplicate documents have potentially significant costs, including bloating corpora with redundant information (biasing techniques built upon such corpora) and requiring additional human and computational analytic resources for marginal benefit. Filtering near-duplicates out of a collection is thus important, and is particularly challenging in applications that require them to be filtered out in real-time with high precision. Previous near-duplicate detection methods typically work offline to identify all near-duplicate pairs in a set of documents. We propose an online system which flags a near-duplicate document by finding its most likely original. This system adapts the shingling algorithm proposed by Broder (1997), and we test it on a challenging dataset of web-based news articles. Our online system presents state-of-the-art F1-scores, and can be tuned to trade precision for recall and vice-versa. Given its performance and online nature, our method can be used in many real-world applications. We present one such application, filtering near-duplicates to improve productivity of human analysts in a situational awareness tool.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".