Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many problems in astronomy and physics lend themselves to solutions from machine learning methods for the detection and classification of astronomical signals, and model inference from those signals. The historic presentation of machine learning methods as ‘black boxes’ has generated push back from some in the the physics/astronomy communities regarding how useful they are to truly uncover the physical laws that govern our world. Skepticism about the applicability of new computational methods in scientific inference is not new; we highlight connections between the machine learning contexts and previous computational paradigm shifts in astronomy. Moreover, several advances in methodologies challenge the assumption that machine learning ‘gives us answers that we can use but do not understand’ to standing physics questions. We summarize some astronomical machine learning data challenges used in astronomy and how we can use challenges on different scales to test different parts/use cases of our analysis methods.
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 | 0.088 | 0.338 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".