MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W14107570

Extracting Synonyms from Dictionary Definitions

2009· article· en· W14107570 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRecent Advances in Natural Language Processing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNatural language processingSynonym (taxonomy)Artificial intelligenceLexiconBilingual dictionaryLemmatisationInformation retrieval
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the problem of extracting synonyms from dictionary definitions. Our premise for using def-inition texts in dictionaries is that, in contrast to free-texts, their composition usually exhibits more regular-ities in terms of syntax and style and thus, will pro-vide a better controlled environment for synonym ex-traction. We propose three extraction methods: two rule-based ones and one using the maximum entropy model; each method is evaluated on three experiments — by solving TOEFL synonym questions, by compar-ing extraction results with existing thesauri, and by la-beling synonyms in definition texts. Results show that simple rule-based extraction methods perform surpris-ingly well on solving TOEFL synonym questions; they actually out-perform the best reported lexicon-based method by a large margin, although they do not corre-late as well with existing thesauri.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it