MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Topological structure of dictionary graphs

2009· article· en· W2087815526 on OpenAlexafffund
Henryk Fukś, Mark Krzemiński

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopological and Geometric Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceTopology (electrical circuits)MathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the topological structure of the subgraphs of dictionary graphs constructed from WordNet and Moby thesaurus data. In the process of learning a foreign language, the learner knows only a subset of all words of the language, corresponding to a subgraph of a dictionary graph. When this subgraph grows with time, its topological properties change. We introduce the notion of the pseudocore and argue that the growth of the vocabulary roughly follows decreasing pseudocore numbers—that is, one first learns words with a high pseudocore number followed by smaller pseudocores. We also propose an alternative strategy for vocabulary growth, involving decreasing core numbers as opposed to pseudocore numbers. We find that as the core or pseudocore grows in size, the clustering coefficient first decreases, then reaches a minimum and starts increasing again. The minimum occurs when the vocabulary reaches a size between 10 3 and 10 4 . A simple model exhibiting similar behavior is proposed. The model is based on a generalized geometric random graph. Possible implications for language learning are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicTopological and Geometric Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207