MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094736841 · doi:10.3115/1641976.1641979

Similarity judgments

2006· article· en· W2094736841 on OpenAlexaff
Claude St-Jacques, Caroline Barrière

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimilarity (geometry)Task (project management)Metric (unit)Computer scienceWord (group theory)Natural language processingArtificial intelligenceInformation retrievalMathematicsImage (mathematics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates similarity judgments from two angles. First, we look at models suggested in the psychology and philosophy literature which capture the essence of concept similarity evaluation for humans. Second, we analyze the properties of many metrics which simulate such evaluation capabilities. The first angle reveals that non-experts can judge similarity and that their judgments need not be based on predefined traits. We use such conclusions to inform us on how gold standards for word sense disambiguation tasks could be established. From the second angle, we conclude that more attention should be paid to metric properties before assigning them to perform a particular 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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0090.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207