Comparing word frequency, semantic diversity, and semantic distinctiveness in lexical organization.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Word frequency (WF) is a strong predictor of lexical behavior. However, much research has shown that measures of contextual and semantic diversity offer a better account of lexical behaviors than WF (Adelman et al., 2006; Jones et al., 2012). In contrast to these previous studies, Chapman and Martin (see record 2022-14138-001) recently demonstrated that WF seems to account for distinct and greater levels of variance than measures of contextual and semantic diversity across a variety of datatypes. However, there are two limitations to these findings. The first is that Chapman and Martin (2022) compared variables derived from different corpora, which makes any conclusion about the theoretical advantage of one metric over another confounded, as it could be the construction of one corpus that provides the advantage and not the underlying theoretical construct. Second, they did not consider recent developments in the semantic distinctiveness model (SDM; Johns, 2021a; Johns et al., 2020; Johns & Jones, 2022). The current paper addressed the second limitation. Consistent with Chapman and Martin (2022), our results showed that the earliest versions of the SDM were less predictive of lexical data relative to WF when derived from a different corpus. However, the later versions of the SDM accounted for substantially more unique variance than WF in lexical decision and naming data. The results suggest that context-based accounts provide a better explanation of lexical organization than repetition-based accounts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".