A High-Precision Approach to Detecting Hedges and their Scopes
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
We extend our prior work on speculative sentence recognition and speculation scope detection in biomedical text to the CoNLL-2010 Shared Task on Hedge Detection. In our participation, we sought to assess the extensibility and portability of our prior work, which relies on linguistic categorization and weighting of hedging cues and on syntactic patterns in which these cues play a role. For Task 1B, we tuned our categorization and weighting scheme to recognize hedging in biological text. By accommodating a small number of vagueness quantifiers, we were able to extend our methodology to detecting vague sentences in Wikipedia articles. We exploited constituent parse trees in addition to syntactic dependency relations in resolving hedging scope. Our results are competitive with those of closeddomain trained systems and demonstrate that our high-precision oriented methodology is extensible and portable. 1
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 | 0.000 |
| 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