Binary classification for perceived quality of headlines and links on worldwide news websites, 2018-2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proliferation of online news enables potential widespread publication of perceived low-quality news headlines/links. As a result, we investigated whether it was possible to automatically distinguish perceived lower-quality news headlines/links from perceived higher-quality headlines/links. We evaluated twelve machine learning models on a binary, balanced dataset of $\mathbf{5 7, 5 4 4, 2 1 4}$ (primarily English) worldwide news website links/headings from 2018-2024 (28,772,107 per class), with 115 extracted linguistic features. Binary labels for each text were derived from scores based on expert consensus regarding the respective news domain quality. Traditional ensemble methods, particularly the bagging classifier, had strong performance $(88.1 \%$ accuracy, $88.3 \% \mathrm{~F} 1$, $\mathbf{8 0} \boldsymbol{/} \mathbf{2 0}$ train/test split). Fine-tuned DistilBERT achieved the highest accuracy $(90.3 \%, 80 / 20$ train/test split) but required more training time. The results suggest that both NLP features with traditional classifiers and deep learning models can effectively differentiate perceived news headline/link quality, with some trade-off between predictive performance and train time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".