Enlarging Paraphrase Collections through Generalization and Instantiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a paraphrase acquisition method that uncovers and exploits generali-ties underlying paraphrases: paraphrase pat-terns are first induced and then used to col-lect novel instances. Unlike existing methods, ours uses both bilingual parallel and monolin-gual corpora. While the former are regarded as a source of high-quality seed paraphrases, the latter are searched for paraphrases that match patterns learned from the seed paraphrases. We show how one can use monolingual cor-pora, which are far more numerous and larger than bilingual corpora, to obtain paraphrases that rival in quality those derived directly from bilingual corpora. In our experiments, the number of paraphrase pairs obtained in this way from monolingual corpora was a large multiple of the number of seed paraphrases. Human evaluation through a paraphrase sub-stitution test demonstrated that the newly ac-quired paraphrase pairs are of reasonable qual-ity. Remaining noise can be further reduced by filtering seed paraphrases. 1
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".