Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most papers on Benford's Law primarily discuss either (1) the science and mathematics for explaining the law; or (2) how to apply the law, especially for detecting data manipulation and fraud; or (3) suggestions for statistical tests to determine if data conform to a Benford's distribution.Leonardo Campanelli's recent paper "Testing Benford's Law" strongly objects to a descriptive measure I discussed in my paper "The Promises and Pitfalls of Benford's Law"-as if that measure were intended for Benford's testing in the Category-3 sense relevant for Campanelli's paper (SJS, vol.4, 2022).This reflects a conflation of meanings for "testing" that is common in the Benford's literature, where many Category-2 papers claim they are applying (directly) conventional or new hypothesis tests as tools to detect fraud.Yet, fraud detection is a forensic and context-sensitive process, for which there is no set formula.In this paper, I clarify the sampling plan I had used earlier to collect and analyze a quasi-random sample of datasets, based on published criteria in the literature, to paint a tentative picture of how far real data vary, and in what ways, from abstract BL expectations.Further, I discuss simulations I have conducted to replicate and expand on my previous results.
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 | 0.127 | 0.384 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".