MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888880755

Do Character-Level Neural Network Language Models Capture Knowledge of Multiword Expression Compositionality?

2018· article· en· W2888880755 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Hakimi Parizi, Paul Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Computational Linguistics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrinciple of compositionalityComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingCharacter (mathematics)TreebankExpression (computer science)Artificial neural networkProgramming languageAnnotation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose the first model for multiword expression (MWE) compositionality prediction based on character-level neural network language models. Experimental results on two kinds of MWEs (noun compounds and verb-particle constructions) and two languages (English and German) suggest that character-level neural network language models capture knowledge of multiword expression compositionality, in particular for English noun compounds and the particle component of English verb-particle constructions. In contrast to many other approaches to MWE compositionality prediction, this character-level approach does not require token-level identification of MWEs in a training corpus, and can potentially predict the compositionality of out-of-vocabulary MWEs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Computational LinguisticsSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207