The Diversity of Conceptual Combination
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Symposium: The Diversity of Conceptual Combination. M ODERATOR Fintan Costello (Fintan.Costello@ucd.ie), Department of Computer Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Fintan Costello (Fintan.Costello@ucd.ie), S PEAKERS Department of Computer Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Zachary Estes (estes@uga.edu), Christina Gagne (cgagne@ualberta.ca), Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. Edward Wisniewski (edw@uncg.edu), Psychology Department, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, North Carolina. Introduction A fundamental aspect of everyday language comprehension is the interpretation of novel compound phrases through conceptual combination: a mechanism that is engaged whenever people interpret phrases like sand gun , cactus fish or pet shark . Conceptual combination is a diverse and complex cognitive process: people are able to combine concepts in a variety of different ways (for example, a “sand gun” is a tool that sprays sand, while a “cactus fish” is a fish with prickly spines, and a “pet shark” is a shark which is also a pet). This diversity is reflected in the number of quite different theories of conceptual combination that have recently been proposed by, for example, Wisniewski (Wisniewski, 1997), Gagne (Gagne & Shoben, 1997), Estes (Estes & Glucksberg, 2000), and Costello (Costello & Keane, 2000). The aim of this symposium is to gather current researchers on conceptual combination to discuss both the diversity of ways in which concepts can combine, and the diversity of theories that have been put forward to account for conceptual combination. Diversity of Combination Types Combined concepts are often divided into three types: relational combinations (such as “sand gun”), which assert a relation linking the two concepts being combined; property combinations (such as “cactus fish”), which transfer a property from one concept to the other; and conjunctive combinations (such as “pet shark”), which describe something that is an example of both combining concepts. These types are quite loose, however, and are by no means definitive or all-inclusive. In this symposium, speakers will address questions such as • Why do concepts combine in different ways? • How significant are the different combination types? • Are some combination types more important than others? Relationship between Theories of Combination Recent theoretical accounts of conceptual combination are strikingly different from each other, ranging from Gagne’s CARIN theory (which uses a standard set of 16 relational templates such as X-HAS-Y or X-ABOUT-Y to interpret compound phrases), to Wisniewski’s Dual-Process theory (which suggests that compound interpretation involves both a scenario-construction mechanism and a structural- alignment mechanism similar to that used in analogies), to Costello’s Constraint theory (which describes conceptual combination as a process of constraint satisfaction subject to the pragmatic requirements of communication using compound phrases). Symposium speakers will address questions such as • Why are the various theories of combination so different? • What common ground do these theories share? • How do these theories relate to each other? • Can we come up with an integrating framework to unite these theories? Conclusion By bringing together researchers taking different approaches to conceptual combination, this symposium will give a useful synthesis of the current state of conceptual combination research. By directly addressing the diversity of concept combination, the symposium may provide the basis for a more unified view of this important and fascinating part of human thought and language. References Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (2000). Efficient creativity: Constraint guided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science,24(2). Estes, Z. & Glucksberg, S. (2000). Interactive property activation in conceptual combination. Memory & Cognition, 28, 28-34. Gagne, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1997). Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23 (1), 71-87. Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). When concepts combine. Psychnomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 167-183.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».