MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079629183 · doi:10.3115/1609067.1609136

Using lexical and relational similarity to classify semantic relations

2009· article· en· W2079629183 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilAtomic Energy of Canada Limited
KeywordsComputer scienceNatural language processingSemantic similarityArtificial intelligenceSimilarity (geometry)Task (project management)Relational databaseWord (group theory)NounInformation retrievalLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many methods are available for computing semantic similarity between individual words, but certain NLP tasks require the comparison of word pairs. This paper presents a kernel-based framework for application to relational reasoning tasks of this kind. The model presented here combines information about two distinct types of word pair similarity: lexical similarity and relational similarity. We present an efficient and flexible technique for implementing relational similarity and show the effectiveness of combining lexical and relational models by demonstrating state-of-the-art results on a compound noun interpretation task.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207