Automatically Identifying Changes in the Semantic Orientation of Words
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
The meanings of words are not fixed but in fact undergo change, with new word senses arising and established senses taking on new aspects of meaning or falling out of usage. Two types of semantic change are amelioration and pejoration; in these processes a word sense changes to become more positive or negative, respectively. In this first computational study of amelioration and pejoration we adapt a web-based method for determining semantic orientation to the task of identifying ameliorations and pejorations in corpora from differing time periods. We evaluate our proposed method on a small dataset of known historical ameliorations and pejorations, and find it to perform better than a random baseline. Since this test dataset is small, we conduct a further evaluation on artificial examples of amelioration and pejoration, and again find evidence that our proposed method is able to identify changes in semantic orientation. Finally, we conduct a preliminary evaluation in which we apply our methods to the task of finding words which have recently undergone amelioration or pejoration. 1. Detecting changes in semantic orientation Word senses are continually evolving, with both new words and new senses of words arising almost daily. Systems for natural language processing tasks, such as question answering and automatic machine translation, often depend on lexicons for a variety of information, such as a word’s partsof-speech or meaning representation. When a sense of a word that is not recorded in a system’s lexicon is encountered in a text being processed, the system will typically fail to recognize the novel word sense as such, and then incorrectly draw on information from the lexical entry corresponding to some other sense of that word. The performance of the entire system will then likely suffer due to this incorrect lexical information. Ideally, a system could automatically identify novel word senses, and subsequently infer the necessary lexical information for the computational task at hand (e.g., the correct meaning representation for a novel word sense). Indeed, novel word senses present one of the most challenging phenomena in lexical acquisition
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 | 0.000 |
| 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