A Novel Alignment-based Approach for PARSEVAL Measuress
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We propose a novel method for calculating PARSEVAL measures to evaluate constituent parsing results. Previous constituent parsing evaluation techniques were constrained by the requirement for consistent sentence boundaries and tokenization results, proving to be stringent and inconvenient. Our new approach handles constituent parsing results obtained from raw text, even when sentence boundaries and tokenization differ from the preprocessed gold sentence. Implementing this measure is our evaluation by alignment approach. The algorithm enables the alignment of tokens and sentences in the gold and system parse trees. Our proposed algorithm draws on the analogy of sentence and word alignment commonly used in machine translation (MT). To demonstrate the intricacy of calculations and clarify any integration of configurations, we explain the implementations in detailed pseudo-code and provide empirical proof for how sentence and word alignment can improve evaluation reliability.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it