MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058214962 · doi:10.1017/s1351324913000090

On the semantics of noun compounds

2013· article· en· W2058214962 on OpenAlexaff
Stan Śzpakowicz, Francis Bond, Preslav Nakov, Su Nam Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Language Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomatic summarizationComputer scienceNounNatural language processingCover (algebra)Artificial intelligenceProper nounSemantics (computer science)Subject (documents)Machine translationLinguisticsNoun phraseQuestion answeringSequence (biology)World Wide WebProgramming languagePhilosophyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The noun compound – a sequence of nouns which functions as a single noun – is very common in English texts. No language processing system should ignore expressions like steel soup pot cover if it wants to be serious about such high-end applications of computational linguistics as question answering, information extraction, text summarization, machine translation – the list goes on. Processing noun compounds, however, is far from trouble-free. For one thing, they can be bracketed in various ways: is it steel soup, steel pot, or steel cover? Then there are relations inside a compound, annoyingly not signalled by any words: does potcontainsoup or is it for cookingsoup? These and many other research challenges are the subject of this special issue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.029
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural Language EngineeringSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207