Subject classification in the Oxford English Dictionary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Oxford English Dictionary is a valuable source of lexical information and a rich testing ground for mining highly structured text. Each entry is organized into a hierarchy of senses, which include definitions, labels and cited quotations. Subject labels distinguish the subject classification of a sense, for example they signal how a word may be used in anthropology, music or computing. Unfortunately subject labeling in the dictionary is incomplete. To overcome this incompleteness, we attempt to classify the senses (i.e., definitions) in the dictionary by their subjects, using the citations as an information guide. We report on four different approaches: k nearest neighbors, a standard classification technique; term weighting, an information retrieval method dealing with text; naive Bayes, a probabilistic method; and expectation maximization, an iterative probabilistic method. Experimental performance of these methods is compared based on standard classification metrics.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.044 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.073 |
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".