Improving text relatedness by incorporating phrase relatedness with word relatedness
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Text is composed of words and phrases. In the bag‐of‐words model, phrases in text are split into words. This may discard the semantics of phrases, which, in turn, may give an inconsistent relatedness score between 2 texts. Our objective is to apply phrase relatedness in conjunction with word relatedness on the text relatedness task to improve text relatedness performance. We adopt 2 existing word relatedness measures based on Google n ‐gram and Global Vectors for Word Representation, respectively, and incorporate them differently with an existing Google n ‐gram–based phrase relatedness method to compute text relatedness. The combination of Google n ‐gram–based word and phrase relatedness performs better than Google n ‐gram–based word relatedness alone, by achieving the higher weighted mean of Pearson's r , ie, 0.639 and 0.619, respectively, on the 14 data sets from the series of Semantic Evaluation workshops SemEval‐2012, SemEval‐2013, and SemEval‐2015. Similarly, the combination of GloVe‐based word relatedness and Google n ‐gram–based phrase relatedness performs better than GloVe‐based word relatedness alone, by achieving the higher weighted mean of Pearson's r , ie, 0.619 and 0.605, respectively, on the same 14 data sets. On the SemEval‐2012, SemEval‐2013, and SemEval‐2015 data sets, the text relatedness results obtained from the combination of Google n ‐gram–based word and phrase relatedness ranked 24, 3, and 31 out of 89, 90, and 73 text relatedness systems, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it