Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the community of bibliometrics, author name ambiguity means that author's name is not a reliable identier for associating academic papers with their authors. Author name ambiguity has been the problem in bibliometrics and service providers like Google Scholar, generating a domain of study call Author Name Disambiguation (AND). Author name ambiguity is often tackled using classication techniques, where labeled papers are provided, and papers are assigned to correct authors according to the paper text and paper citations. When applying classication methods to author name disambiguation, two issues stand out: one is that a paper has multiple views (paper text and citation network). The other is the lack of training data: there are not many papers that are labeled. To cope with these two issues, we propose to use the co-training algorithm in AND. The co-training algorithm uses two views to classify papers iteratively and add the top selected papers into the training pool. We demonstrate that the co-training algorithm outperforms the baseline multi-view classication algorithm. We also experiment with hyper-parameters in the co-training algorithm. The experiment is done on the PubMed dataset, where authors are labeled with ORCID. Papers are represented by two embeddings that are learnt from paper content and paper citation network separately. Baseline classiers for comparison are logistic regression and SVM.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".