MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164004475 · doi:10.1111/lang.12452

The Nuclear Word Family List: A List of the Most Frequent Family Members, Including Base and Affixed Words

2021· article· en· W3164004475 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Cobb, Batia Laufer

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWord (group theory)Construct (python library)Word listComputer scienceLinguisticsNatural language processingNuclear familyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article introduces the NFL7 (Nuclear Family List 7), a list of the 2,887 most frequent “nuclear” word families, that is, families that include just the most frequent family members and exclude those that constitute less than 7% of family occurrences. The NFL7 was developed by using a dedicated computer program, the Nuclear List Builder (freely available to users). To construct the list, we used that tool to reduce the complete BNC/COCA lists of the 3,000 most frequent word families from 19,062 to 7,293 word types and from 9,132 to 5,610 lemmas. Despite this reduction, the NFL7 compares favorably with other lists in terms of text coverage, and it includes a small number of the most frequent derivational affixes. We argue that the nuclearization of the list makes it suitable for nonadvanced learners, for teaching and testing both receptive and productive knowledge, and for instruction in basic morphology.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.022

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations39
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage LearningSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207