MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1956103381

Automatic Acquisition of Lexical Formality

2010· article· en· W1956103381 on OpenAlex
Julian Brooke, Tong Wang, Graeme Hirst

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

VenueInternational Conference on Computational Linguistics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormalityComputer scienceWord (group theory)Natural language processingArtificial intelligenceWord AssociationMetric (unit)Similarity (geometry)Association (psychology)Task (project management)Synonym (taxonomy)LinguisticsSpeech recognitionPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been relatively little work focused on determining the formality level of individual lexical items. This study applies information from large mixed-genre corpora, demonstrating that significant improvement is possible over simple word-length metrics, particularly when multiple sources of information, i.e. word length, word counts, and word association, are integrated. Our best hybrid system reaches 86% accuracy on an English near-synonym formality identification task, and near perfect accuracy when comparing words with extreme formality differences. We also test our word association method in Chinese, a language where word length is not an appropriate metric for formality.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.311 · 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