Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Document clustering is useful in many information retrieval tasks: document browsing, organization and viewing of retrieval results, generation of Yahoo-like hierarchies of documents, etc. The general goal of clustering is to group data elements such that the intra-group similarities are high and the inter-group similarities are low. We present a clustering algorithm called CBC (Clustering By Committee) that is shown to produce higher quality clusters in document clustering tasks as compared to several well known clustering algorithms. It initially discovers a set of tight clusters (high intra-group similarity), called committees, that are well scattered in the similarity space (low inter-group similarity). The union of the committees is but a subset of all elements. The algorithm proceeds by assigning elements to their most similar committee. Evaluating cluster quality has always been a difficult task. We present a new evaluation methodology that is based on the editing distance between output clusters and manually constructed classes (the answer key). This evaluation measure is more intuitive and easier to interpret than previous evaluation measures.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it