Open-access network science: Investigating phonological similarity networks based on the SUBTLEX-US lexicon
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
Network science tools are becoming increasingly important to psycholinguistics, but few open-access data sets exist for exploring network properties of even well-studied languages like English. We constructed several phonological similarity networks (neighbors differ in exactly one consonant or vowel phoneme) using words from a lexicon based on the SUBTLEX-US English corpus, distinguishing networks by size and word representation (i.e., lemma vs. word form). The resulting networks are shown to exhibit many familiar characteristics, including small-world properties, broad degree distributions, and robustness to node removal, regardless of network size and word representation. We also validated the SUBTLEX phonological networks by showing that they exhibit contrasts in degree and clustering coefficient comparable to the same contrasts found in prior studies and exhibit familiar trends after extraction of a backbone network of nodes important to network centrality. The data release ( https://github.com/aldo-git-bit/phonological-similarity-networks-SUBTLEX ) includes 17 adjacency lists that can be further explored using the networkX package in Python, a package of files for building new adjacency lists from scratch, and several scripts that allow users to analyze and extend these results.
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 | 0.024 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it