Dependency profiles in the large-scale analysis of discourse connectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article presents dependency profiles (DPs) as an empirical method to investigate linguistic elements and their application to the study of 24 discourse connectives in the 3.7-billion token Finnish Internet Parsebank ( http://bionlp-www.utu.fi/dep_search/ ). DPs are based on co-occurrence patterns of the discourse connectives with dependency syntax relations. They follow the assumption of usage-based models, according to which the semantic and functional properties of linguistic expressions arise based on their distributional characteristics. We focus on the typical usage patterns reflected by the DPs and the (dis)similarities among discourse connectives that these patterns reveal. We demonstrate that 1) DPs can be analyzed with clustering to obtain linguistically meaningful groupings among the connectives and that 2) the clustering can be combined with support vector machines to obtain generic and stable linguistic characteristics of the discourse connectives. We show that this data-driven method offers support for previous results and reveals novel tendencies outside the scope of studies on smaller corpora. As the method is based on automatic syntactic analysis following the cross-linguistic universal dependencies, it does not require manual annotation and can be applied to a number of languages and in contrastive studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".