Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Document clustering has been traditionally studied as a centralized process. There are scenarios when centralized clustering does not serve the required purpose; e.g. documents spanning multiple digital libraries need not be clustered in one location, but rather clustered at each location, then enriched by receiving more information from other locations. A distributed collaborative approach for document clustering is proposed in this paper. The main objective here is to allow peers in a network to form independent opinions of local document grouping, followed by exchange of cluster summaries in the form of keyphrase vectors. The nodes then expand and enrich their local solution by receiving recommended documents from their peers based on the peer judgement of the similarity of local documents to the exchanged cluster summaries. Results show improvement in final clustering after merging peer recommendations. The approach allows independent nodes to achieve better local clustering by having access to distributed data without the cost of centralized clustering, while maintaining the initial local clustering structure and coherency.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it