Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1901.06815 v2 pith:VAW2EEDM submitted 2019-01-21 cs.DL cs.SI

A principled methodology for comparing relatedness measures for clustering publications

classification cs.DL cs.SI
keywords relatednessclusteringmeasuresrelationssolutionscitationmethodologypublications
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

There are many different relatedness measures, based for instance on citation relations or textual similarity, that can be used to cluster scientific publications. We propose a principled methodology for evaluating the accuracy of clustering solutions obtained using these relatedness measures. We formally show that the proposed methodology has an important consistency property. The empirical analyses that we present are based on publications in the fields of cell biology, condensed matter physics, and economics. Using the BM25 text-based relatedness measure as evaluation criterion, we find that bibliographic coupling relations yield more accurate clustering solutions than direct citation relations and co-citation relations. The so-called extended direct citation approach performs similarly to or slightly better than bibliographic coupling in terms of the accuracy of the resulting clustering solutions. The other way around, using a citation-based relatedness measure as evaluation criterion, BM25 turns out to yield more accurate clustering solutions than other text-based relatedness measures.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.