<scp>Phenomenon‐based</scp> classification: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While bibliographic classifications are traditionally based on disciplines, the logical alternative is phenomenon‐based classification. Although not prevalent, this approach has been explored in the 20th century by J.D. Brown, the Classification Research Group, and others. Its principles have been stated in the León Manifesto (2007) and are currently represented by such general schemes as the Basic Concepts Classification and the Integrative Levels Classification. A phenomenon‐based classification lists classes of phenomena, including things and processes irrespective of the discipline studying them (which can optionally be specified as an additional facet). Facets can work in a phenomenon‐based system much as in a disciplinary one. This kind of system will promote the identification of potential relationships between research in different disciplines, and will especially benefit interdisciplinary work. The paper reviews the theory, history, structure, advantages, applications, and evaluation of phenomenon‐based classification systems.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".