Domain‐topic models with chained dimensions: Charting an emergent domain of a major oncology conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a contribution to the study of bibliographic corpora through science mapping. From a graph representation of documents and their textual dimension, stochastic block models can provide a simultaneous clustering of documents and words that we call a domain-topic model. Previous work investigated the resulting topics, or word clusters, while ours focuses on the study of the document clusters we call domains. To enable the description and interactive navigation of domains, we introduce measures and interfaces that consider the structure of the model to relate both types of clusters. We then present a procedure that extends the block model to cluster metadata attributes of documents, which we call a domain-chained model, noting that our measures and interfaces transpose to metadata clusters. We provide an example application to a corpus relevant to current science, technology and society (STS) research and an interesting case for our approach: the abstracts presented between 1995 and 2017 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, the major oncology research conference. Through a sequence of domain-topic and domain-chained models, we identify and describe a group of domains that have notably grown through the last decades and which we relate to the establishment of "oncopolicy" as a major concern in oncology.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".