Autonomous data extraction from peer reviewed literature for training machine learning models of oxidation potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an automated data-collection pipeline involving a convolutional neural network and a large language model to extract user-specified tabular data from peer-reviewed literature. The pipeline is applied to 74 reports published between 1957 and 2014 with experimentally-measured oxidation potentials for 592 organic molecules (-0.75 to 3.58 V). After data curation (solvents, reference electrodes, and missed data points), we trained multiple supervised machine learning models reaching prediction errors similar to experimental uncertainty ($\sim$0.2 V). For experimental measurements of identical molecules reported in multiple studies, we identified the most likely value based on out-of-sample machine learning predictions. Using the trained machine learning models, we then estimated oxidation potentials of $\sim$132k small organic molecules from the QM9 data set, with predicted values spanning 0.21 to 3.46 V. Analysis of the QM9 predictions in terms of plausible descriptor-property trends suggests that aliphaticity increases the oxidation potential of an organic molecule on average from $\sim$1.5 V to $\sim$2 V, while an increase in number of heavy atoms lowers it systematically. The pipeline introduced offers significant reductions in human labor otherwise required for conventional manual data collection of experimental results, and exemplifies how to accelerate scientific research through automation.
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 | 0.017 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.015 |
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".