Bibliographic record
Abstract
NLP (natural language processing) is a very broad subcategory of computer science that focuses on human language processing in computers. Each different NLP processing technique focuses on different parts of linguistics, with semantics being the main focus of this manuscript. This manuscript aims to utilize a systematic review of several published papers ranging from 1998 to the current day to review and summarize critical analysis regarding the three main models that this paper focuses on: Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA), Explicit Semantic Analysis (ESA), and Neural Network based models. This manuscript compares these models against each other, weighs their advantages and disadvantages, and provides their uses. The selected studies in this review were analyzed and examined to ensure that they meet the quality and standards of the proposed research methodology. The results show that Neural network-based solutions are the most popular Semantic Analysis model in Academia (doubling the number of results of ESA and LSA combined), and they are usually the best in most tasks. However, there are specific scenarios and circumstances in which relying on the older LSA and ESA models could be beneficial.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".