MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1546791496 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v25i1.7975

Using Semantic Cues to Learn Syntax

2011· article· en· W1546791496 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

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersArmy Research LaboratoryAir Force Research LaboratoryArmy Research OfficeAdvanced Research Projects AgencyDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency
KeywordsComputer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceSyntactic predicateIntuitionPredicate (mathematical logic)ExploitSyntaxProgramming languageCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a method for dependency grammar induction that utilizes sparse annotations of semantic relations. This induction set-up is attractive because such annotations provide useful clues about the underlying syntactic structure, and they are readily available in many domains (e.g., info-boxes and HTML markup). Our method is based on the intuition that syntactic realizations of the same semantic predicate exhibit some degree of consistency. We incorporate this intuition in a directed graphical model that tightly links the syntactic and semantic structures. This design enables us to exploit syntactic regularities while still allowing for variations. Another strength of the model lies in its ability to capture non-local dependency relations. Our results demonstrate that even a small amount of semantic annotations greatly improves the accuracy of learned dependencies when tested on both in-domain and out-of-domain texts.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.078 · 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