Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toponym Resolution, the task of assigning a location mention in a document to a geographic referent (i.e., latitude/longitude), plays a pivotal role in analyzing location-aware content. However, the ambiguities of natural language and a huge number of possible interpretations for toponyms constitute insurmountable hurdles for this task. In this paper, we study the problem of toponym resolution with no additional information other than a gazetteer and no training data. We demonstrate that a dearth of large enough annotated data makes supervised methods less capable of generalizing. Our proposed method estimates the geographic scope of documents and leverages the connections between nearby place names as evidence to resolve toponyms. We explore the interactions between multiple interpretations of mentions and the relationships between different toponyms in a document to build a model that finds the most coherent resolution. Our model is evaluated on three news corpora, two from the literature and one collected and annotated by us; then, we compare our methods to the state-of-the-art unsupervised and supervised techniques. We also examine three commercial products including Reuters OpenCalais, Yahoo! YQL Placemaker, and Google Cloud Natural Language API. The evaluation shows that our method outperforms the unsupervised technique as well as Reuters OpenCalais and Google Cloud Natural Language API on all three corpora; also, our method shows a performance close to that of the state-of-the art supervised method and outperforms it when the test data has 40% or more toponyms that are not seen in the training data.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".