Modeling multi-prototype Chinese word representation learning for word similarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The word similarity task is used to calculate the similarity of any pair of words, and is a basic technology of natural language processing (NLP). The existing method is based on word embedding, which fails to capture polysemy and is greatly influenced by the quality of the corpus. In this paper, we propose a multi-prototype Chinese word representation model (MP-CWR) for word similarity based on synonym knowledge base, including knowledge representation module and word similarity module. For the first module, we propose a dual attention to combine semantic information for jointly learning word knowledge representation. The MP-CWR model utilizes the synonyms as prior knowledge to supplement the relationship between words, which is helpful to solve the challenge of semantic expression due to insufficient data. As for the word similarity module, we propose a multi-prototype representation for each word. Then we calculate and fuse the conceptual similarity of two words to obtain the final result. Finally, we verify the effectiveness of our model on three public data sets with other baseline models. In addition, the experiments also prove the stability and scalability of our MP-CWR model under different corpora.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".