MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2478941700 · doi:10.1075/cilt.309.18isl

Semantic similarity of short texts

2009· article· en· W2478941700 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theory · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSemantic similarityNatural language processingSimilarity (geometry)Artificial intelligenceWord (group theory)SentenceVariety (cybernetics)Focus (optics)Representation (politics)Matching (statistics)Longest common subsequence problemInformation retrievalString metricPattern matchingString searching algorithmMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a method for measuring the semantic similarity of texts using a corpus based measure of semantic word similarity and a normalized and modified versions of the Longest Common Subsequence (LCS) string matching algorithm. Existing methods for computing text similarity have focused mainly on either large documents or individual words. In this paper, we focus on computing the similarity between two sentence or between two short paragraphs. The proposed method can be exploited in a variety of applications involving textual knowledge representation and knowledge discovery. Evaluation results on two different data sets show that our method outperforms several competing methods. Keywords Semantic similarity of words, similarity of short texts, corpusbased measures. 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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.294 · 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