MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automated Authorship Attribution using CNG Distance on Blog Posts in the Serbian Language

2023· article· en· W4364360636 on OpenAlexaff
Vlado Kešelj

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAuthorship Attribution and Profiling
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAuthorship attributionSerbianAttributionNatural language processingTask (project management)Artificial intelligencePreprocessorCharacter (mathematics)Benchmark (surveying)NormativeLanguage identificationLinguisticsNatural languagePsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The automated authorship attribution problem is a task of identifying the author of a given text using an objective algorithmic method based on previous texts written by the candidate authors. We are particularly interested in methods that do not rely on any language-specific knowledge or preprocessing, and that are based on a low-level text representation such as a sequence of letters and other characters. The previous work has shown that author profiles consisting of the most frequent character n-grams are effective in the authorship attribution in a number of languages, but not many results are reported on languages with sparse resources, such as the Serbian and related languages. We show that a character n-gram based method has also a very good performance in the Serbian language. Another contribution of this work is a new dataset prepared as a good benchmark for the authorship attribution task, comparable to the previously published similar datasets for English, Greek, and some other languages. This dataset for authorship attribution prepared in this work consists of blog posts published as commentary columns on a news and commentary portal, and as such is a grammatical and well-written language corpus, and a good representative of current normative language. The CNG distance method, which was shown to work well in a number of languages before, shows high accuracy of 94% over 5 authors, and 83% over 10 authors in the authorship attribution for this dataset as well. As expected from the results for other European languages, the highest accuracy is obtained around n-grams of size n =6,7, or a wider range of n =3,…,8, with L parameter from 500 to 9000, although even for the parameters n =2 and L =500 some relatively high accuracies are achieved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAuthorship Attribution and ProfilingFrench-language works237,207