Relationship Prediction in a Knowledge Graph Embedding Model of the Illicit Antiquities Trade
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
ABSTRACT The transnational networks of the illicit and illegal antiquities trade are hard to perceive. We suggest representing the trade as a knowledge graph with multiple kinds of relationships that can be transformed by a neural architecture into a “knowledge graph embedding model.” The result is that the vectorization of the knowledge represented in the graph can be queried for missing “knowledge” of the trade by virtue of the various entities’ proximity in the multidimensional embedding space. In this article, we build a knowledge graph about the antiquities trade using a semantic annotation tool, drawing on the series of articles in the Trafficking Culture Project's online encyclopedia. We then use the AmpliGraph package, a series of tools for supervised machine learning (Costabello et al. 2019) to turn the graph into a knowledge graph embedding model. We query the model to predict new hypotheses and to cluster actors in the trade. The model suggests connections between actors and institutions hitherto unsuspected and not otherwise present in the original knowledge graph. This approach could hold enormous potential for illuminating the hidden corners of the illicit antiquities trade. The same method could be applied to other kinds of archaeological knowledge.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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