Scaled Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient for Evaluating Text Similarity Measures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the ever-increasing interest in the field of text similarity methods, the development of adequate text similarity methods is lagging. Some methods are decent in entailment while others are reasonable to the degree to which two texts are similar. Very often, these methods are compared using Pearson’s correlation; however, Pearson’s correlation is bound to outliers that could affect the final correlation coefficient figure. As a result, the Pearson correlation is inadequate to find which text similarity method is better in situations where data items are very similar or are unrelated. This paper borrows the scaled Pearson correlation from the finance domain and builds a metric that can evaluate the performance of similarity methods over cross-sectional datasets. Results showed that the new metric is fine-grained with the benchmark dataset scores range as a promising alternative to Pearson’s correlation. Moreover, extrinsic results from the application of the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire on the scaled Pearson correlation revealed that the proposed metric is attaining attention from scholars which implicate its usage in the academia.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it