MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620728056 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1708.03994

Data Sets: Word Embeddings Learned from Tweets and General Data

2017· preprint· en· W2620728056 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

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsThomson Reuters (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWord (group theory)Word embeddingNatural language processingEmbeddingArtificial intelligenceRepresentation (politics)Information retrievalSentiment analysisLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A word embedding is a low-dimensional, dense and real- valued vector representation of a word. Word embeddings have been used in many NLP tasks. They are usually gener- ated from a large text corpus. The embedding of a word cap- tures both its syntactic and semantic aspects. Tweets are short, noisy and have unique lexical and semantic features that are different from other types of text. Therefore, it is necessary to have word embeddings learned specifically from tweets. In this paper, we present ten word embedding data sets. In addition to the data sets learned from just tweet data, we also built embedding sets from the general data and the combination of tweets with the general data. The general data consist of news articles, Wikipedia data and other web data. These ten embedding models were learned from about 400 million tweets and 7 billion words from the general text. In this paper, we also present two experiments demonstrating how to use the data sets in some NLP tasks, such as tweet sentiment analysis and tweet topic classification tasks.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0150.047
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.059 · 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