MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407223942

Discourse Relation Recognition by Comparing Various Units of Sentence Expression with Recursive Neural Network

2015· article· en· W2407223942 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAtomic Energy of Canada LimitedInstitute for Catastrophic Loss ReductionUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsSentenceComputer scienceRelation (database)Meaning (existential)Natural language processingFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceRecurrent neural networkExpression (computer science)Word (group theory)Artificial neural networkSpeech recognitionLinguisticsPsychologyData mining
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a method for implicit discourse relation recognition using a recursive neural network (RNN).Many previous studies have used the word-pair feature to compare the meaning of two sentences for implicit discourse relation recognition.Our proposed method differs in that we use various-sized sentence expression units and compare the meaning of the expressions between two sentences by converting the expressions into vectors using the RNN.Experiments showed that our method significantly improves the accuracy of identifying implicit discourse relations compared with the word-pair 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.239 · 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