Exploring Category Structure with Contextual Language Models and Lexical Semantic Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work on predicting category structure with distributional models, using either static word embeddings (Heyman and Heyman, 2019) or contextualized language models (CLMs) (Misra et al., 2021), report low correlations with human ratings, thus calling into question their plausibility as models of human semantic memory.In this work, we revisit this question testing a wider array of methods for probing CLMs for predicting typicality scores.Our experiments, using BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), show the importance of using the right type of CLM probes, as our best BERT-based typicality prediction methods substantially improve over previous works.Second, our results highlight the importance of polysemy in this task: our best results are obtained when using a disambiguation mechanism.Finally, additional experiments reveal that Information Contentbased WordNet (Miller, 1995), also endowed with disambiguation, matches the performance of the best BERT-based method, and in fact captures complementary information, which can be combined with BERT to achieve enhanced typicality predictions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".