Lexfom: a lexical functions ontology model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A lexical function represents a type of relation that exists between lexical units (words or expressions) in any language. For example, the antonymy is a type of relation that is represented by the lexical function Anti: Anti(big) = small. Those relations include both paradigmatic relations, i.e. vertical relations, such as synonymy, antonymy and meronymy and syntagmatic relations, i.e. horizontal relations, such as objective qualification (legitimate demand), subjective qualification (fruitful analysis), positive evaluation (good review) and support verbs (pay a visit, subject to an interrogation). In this paper, we present the Lexical Functions Ontology Model (lexfom) to represent lexical functions and the relation among lexical units. Lexfom is divided in four modules: lexical function representation (lfrep), lexical function family (lffam), lexical function semantic perspective (lfsem) and lexical function relations (lfrel). Moreover, we show how it combines to Lexical Model for Ontologies (lemon), for the transformation of lexical networks into the semantic web formats. So far, we have implemented 100 simple and 500 complex lexical functions, and encoded about 8,000 syntagmatic and 46,000 paradigmatic relations, for the French language.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".