MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determining Word Sense Dominance Using a Thesaurus.

2006· article· en· W32688152 on OpenAlexaff
Saif M. Mohammad, Graeme Hirst

Bibliographic record

VenueConference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsThesaurusNatural language processingComputer scienceWord (group theory)Word-sense disambiguationArtificial intelligenceDominance (genetics)Similarity (geometry)Information retrievalLinguisticsWordNet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The degree of dominance of a sense of a word is the proportion of occurrences of that sense in text. We propose four new methods to accurately determine word sense dominance using raw text and a published thesaurus. Unlike the McCarthy et al. (2004) system, these methods can be used on relatively small target texts, without the need for a similarly-sensedistributed auxiliary text. We perform an extensive evaluation using artificially generated thesaurus-sense-tagged data. In the process, we create a word–category cooccurrence matrix, which can be used for unsupervised word sense disambiguation and estimating distributional similarity of word senses, as well.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations44
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational LinguisticsSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207