Simple Co‐Occurrence Statistics Reproducibly Predict Association Ratings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What determines human ratings of association? We planned this paper as a test for association strength (AS) that is derived from the log likelihood that two words co-occur significantly more often together in sentences than is expected from their single word frequencies. We also investigated the moderately correlated interactions of word frequency, emotional valence, arousal, and imageability of both words (r's ≤ .3). In three studies, linear mixed effects models revealed that AS and valence reproducibly account for variance in the human ratings. To understand further correlated predictors, we conducted a hierarchical cluster analysis and examined the predictors of four clusters in competitive analyses: Only AS and word2vec skip-gram cosine distances reproducibly accounted for variance in all three studies. The other predictors of the first cluster (number of common associates, (positive) point-wise mutual information, and word2vec CBOW cosine) did not reproducibly explain further variance. The same was true for the second cluster (word frequency and arousal); the third cluster (emotional valence and imageability); and the fourth cluster (consisting of joint frequency only). Finally, we discuss emotional valence as an important dimension of semantic space. Our results suggest that a simple definition of syntagmatic word contiguity (AS) and a paradigmatic measure of semantic similarity (skip-gram cosine) provide the most general performance-independent explanation of association ratings.
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 | 0.010 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".