MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W294494887 · doi:10.63317/3f5rfz78d85e

Definition patterns for predicative terms in specialized lexical resources

2014· article· en· W294494887 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio San Martín, Marie-Claude L’Homme

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredicative expressionComputer scienceRelation (database)Set (abstract data type)Natural language processingLexical itemFunction (biology)Information retrievalArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsData miningProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research presented in this paper is part of a larger project on the semi-automatic generation of definitions of semantically-related terms in specialized resources. The work reported here involves the formulation of instructions to generate the definitions of sets of morphologically-related predicative terms, based on the definition of one of the members of the set. In many cases, it is assumed that the definition of a predicative term can be inferred by combining the definition of a related lexical unit with the information provided by the semantic relation (i.e. lexical function) that links them. In other words, terminographers only need to know the definition of pollute and the semantic relation that links it to other morphologically-related terms (polluter, polluting, pollutant, etc.) in order to create the definitions of the set. The results show that rules can be used to generate a preliminary set of definitions (based on specific lexical functions). They also show that more complex rules would need to be devised for other morphological pairs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207