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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many NLP applications entail that texts are classified based on their semantic distance (how similar or different the texts are). For example, comparing the text of a new document to that of documents of known topics can help identify the topic of the new text. Typically, a distributional distance is used to capture the implicit semantic distance between two pieces of text. However, such approaches do not take into account the semantic relations between words. In this article, we introduce an alternative method of measuring the semantic distance between texts that integrates distributional information and ontological knowledge within a network flow formalism. We first represent each text as a collection of frequency-weighted concepts within an ontology. We then make use of a network flow method which provides an efficient way of explicitly measuring the frequency-weighted ontological distance between the concepts across two texts. We evaluate our method in a variety of NLP tasks, and find that it performs well on two of three tasks. We develop a new measure of semantic coherence that enables us to account for the performance difference across the three data sets, shedding light on the properties of a data set that lends itself well to our method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it