Navigating the semantic space: Unraveling the structure of meaning in psychosis using different computational language models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speech in psychosis has long been ascribed as involving 'loosening of associations'. We pursued the aim to elucidate its underlying cognitive mechanisms by analysing picture descriptions from 94 subjects (29 healthy controls, 18 participants at clinical high risk, 29 with first-episode psychosis, and 18 with chronic schizophrenia), using five language models with different computational architectures: FastText, which represents meaning non-contextually/statically; BERT, which represents contextual meaning sensitive to grammar and context; Infersent and SBERT, which provide sentential representations; and CLIP, which evaluates speech relative to a visual stimulus. These models were used to quantify semantic distances crossed between successive tokens/sentences, and semantic perplexity indicating unexpectedness in continuations. Results showed that, among patients, semantic similarity increased when measured with FastText, Infersent, and SBERT, while it decreased with CLIP and BERT. Higher perplexity was observed in first-episode psychosis. Static semantic measures were associated with clinically measured impoverishment of thought and referential semantic measures with disorganization. These patterns indicate a shrinking conceptual semantic space as represented by static language models, which co-occurs with a widening in the referential semantic space as represented by contextual models. This duality underlines the need to separate these two forms of meaning for understanding mechanisms involved in semantic change in psychosis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".