The Three Terms Task - an open benchmark to compare human and artificial semantic representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Word processing entails retrieval of a unitary yet multidimensional semantic representation (e.g., a lemon's colour, flavour, possible use) and has been investigated in both cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence. To enable the direct comparison of human and artificial semantic representations, and to support the use of natural language processing (NLP) for computational modelling of human understanding, a critical challenge is the development of benchmarks of appropriate size and complexity. Here we present a dataset probing semantic knowledge with a three-terms semantic associative task: which of two target words is more closely associated with a given anchor (e.g., is lemon closer to squeezer or sour?). The dataset includes both abstract and concrete nouns for a total of 10,107 triplets. For the 2,255 triplets with varying levels of agreement among NLP word embeddings, we additionally collected behavioural similarity judgments from 1,322 human raters. We hope that this openly available, large-scale dataset will be a useful benchmark for both computational and neuroscientific investigations of semantic knowledge.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".