Biomedical Word Sense Disambiguation with Contextualized Representation Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Representation learning is an important component in solving most Natural Language Processing (NLP) problems, including Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD). The WSD task tries to find the best meaning in a knowledge base for a word with multiple meanings (ambiguous word). WSD methods choose this best meaning based on the context, i.e., the words around the ambiguous word in the input text document. Thus, word representations may improve the effectiveness of the disambiguation models if they carry useful information from the context and the knowledge base. Most of the current representation learning approaches are that they are mostly trained on the general English text and are not domain specified. In this paper, we present a novel contextual-knowledge base aware sense representation method in the biomedical domain. The novelty in our representation is the integration of the knowledge base and the context. This representation lies in a space comparable to that of contextualized word vectors, thus allowing a word occurrence to be easily linked to its meaning by applying a simple nearest neighbor approach. Comparing our approach with state-of-the-art methods shows the effectiveness of our method in terms of text coherence.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".