Using a Deep Learning Model, Content Features, and Author Metadata to Recommend Research Papers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the Canadian Science Publishing, there are approximately 2.5 million scientific papers published each year. The huge volume of publications can be contributed to a substantial increase in the total number of academic journals, including the increasing number of predatory or fake scientific journals, which yield high volumes of poor-quality research work. The effect of this scenario is that there is an obsolete jungle of journals to flip through in searching for high-quality and relevant references for researchers, ranging from the ones who simply look for citations to cite or latest development and knowledge in a specific scientific area of study. Querying existing web search engines and research paper archived websites is not the solution to the problem, since they are m-equipped to suggest high quality publications to meet the users' information needs. In solving this problem, we propose an elegant research paper recommender, which is unique compared with existing ones, since besides considering the topics and contents of related publications, it also examines the authority and popularity of each publication to ensure its quality. Conducted empirical study shows that our recommender outperforms existing research paper recommenders and contributes to the design of searching relevant publications.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".