Yes of course. To be clear though, the model would only ever be a tool to assist manual reviewing, so there is no need to distinguish undisclosed and declared paid editors. My interest is in being able to assess thousands of articles and find those most likely to have been written by UPEs.

Not for now, but there may be work to do at some point to evaluate the output. It should be possible to use manual reviewing to improve the model (I think this was how cluebot was trained). Yes please put us in touch.

I've been working on detecting UPE in new articles with some researchers for the last few months and we have some promising results from the training of the model. We're now testing on some new articles and will manually review the positive results to judge how well it does in practice. There are some extra features that I am looking to add myself that I have held back for now as the researchers would like to publish their findings.

Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this. Here are a few of my ideas: