MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002373856 · doi:10.3115/1119176.1119186

Semi-supervised verb class discovery using noisy features

2003· article· en· W2002373856 on OpenAlexafffund
Suzanne Stevenson, Eric Joanis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCluster analysisClass (philosophy)Natural language processingSet (abstract data type)Feature (linguistics)VerbFeature selectionTask (project management)Selection (genetic algorithm)Unsupervised learningSupervised learningFace (sociological concept)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural networkLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We cluster verbs into lexical semantic classes, using a general set of noisy features that capture syntactic and semantic properties of the verbs. The feature set was previously shown to work well in a supervised learning setting, using known English verb classes. In moving to a scenario of verb class discovery, using clustering, we face the problem of having a large number of irrelevant features for a particular clustering task. We investigate various approaches to feature selection, using both unsupervised and semi-supervised methods, comparing the results to subsets of features manually chosen according to linguistic properties. We find that the unsupervised method we tried cannot be consistently applied to our data. However, the semi-supervised approach (using a seed set of sample verbs) overall outperforms not only the full set of features, but the hand-selected features as well.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207