MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136433925 · doi:10.1017/s1351324903003231

Surface-marker-based dialog modelling: A progress report on the MAREDI project

2003· article· en· W2136433925 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Language Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDialog boxNatural language processingConnectionismSemantics (computer science)ConversationSpoken languageArtificial intelligenceNatural languageNatural language understandingNatural language generationProgramming languageLinguisticsArtificial neural networkWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most information systems that deal with natural language texts do not tolerate much deviation from their idealized and simplified model of language. Spoken dialog is notoriously ungrammatical, however. Because the MAREDI project focuses in particular on the automatic analysis of scripted dialogs, we needed to develop a robust capacity to analyze transcribed spoken language. This paper summarizes the current state of our work. It presents the main elements of our approach, which is based on exploiting surface markers as the best route to the semantics of the conversation modelled. We highlight the foundations of our particular conversational model, and give an overview of the MAREDI system. We then discuss its three key modules, a connectionist network to recognise speech acts, a robust syntactic analyzer, and a semantic analyzer.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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