Automatically determining allowable combinations of a class of flexible multiword expressions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We develop statistical measures for assessing the acceptability of a frequent class of multiword expressions. We also use the measures to estimate the degree of productivity of the expressions over semantically related nouns. We show that a linguistically-inspired measure outperforms a standard measure of collocation in its match with human judgments. The measure uses simple extraction techniques over non-marked-up web data. 1 Light Verb Constructions Recent work in NLP has recognized the challenges posed by the rich variety of multiword expressions (MWEs) (e.g., Sag et al., 2002). One unsolved problem posed by MWEs is how they should be encoded in a computational lexicon. Many MWEs are syntactically flexible; for these it is inappropriate to treat the full expression as a single word. However, fully compositional techniques can lead to overgeneralization, because flexible MWEs are often semi-productive: new expressions can only be formed from limited combinations of semantically and syntactically similar component words. In order to achieve accurate lexical acquisition methods, we must determine computational
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".