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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".