MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756560861 · doi:10.63317/2aovvs53yg45

Second Order Co-occurrence PMI for Determining the Semantic Similarity of Words

2006· article· en· W2756560861 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemantic similarityNatural language processingSimilarity (geometry)Computer scienceSynonym (taxonomy)Artificial intelligencePointwiseNounPointwise mutual informationSemantics (computer science)Test (biology)LinguisticsMathematicsMutual information

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new corpus-based method for calculating the semantic similarity of two target words. Our method, called Second Order Co-occurrence PMI (SOC-PMI), uses Pointwise Mutual Information to sort lists of important neighbor words of the two target words. Then we consider the words which are common in both lists and aggregate their PMI values (from the opposite list) to calculate the relative semantic similarity. Our method was empirically evaluated using Miller and Charler’s (1991) 30 noun pair subset, Ruben-stein and Goodenough’s (1965) 65 noun pairs, 80 synonym test questions from the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), and 50 synonym test questions from a collection of English as a Second Language (ESL) tests. Evaluation results show that our method outperforms several competing corpus-based methods. 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Quick stats

Citations109
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207