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 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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
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".