An Exploration of Semantic Features in an Unsupervised Thematic Fit Evaluation Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thematic fit is the extent to which an entity fits a thematic role in the semantic frame of an event, e.g., how well humans would rate "knife" as an instrument of an event of cutting. We explore the use of the SENNA semantic role-labeller in defining a distributional space in order to build an unsupervised model of event-entity thematic fit judgements. We test a number of ways of extracting features from SENNA-labelled versions of the ukWaC and BNC corpora and identify tradeoffs. Some of our Distributional Memory models outperform an existing syntaxbased model (TypeDM) that uses hand-crafted rules for role inference on a previously tested data set. We combine the results of a selected SENNA-based model with TypeDM's results and find that there is some amount of complementarity in what a syntactic and a semantic model will cover. In the process, we create a broad-coverage semantically-labelled corpus.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".