MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409763820 · doi:10.32628/ijsrst251222653

Fusion of Fast-text and Indo-Wordnet for Disambiguation of Word Sense in the Marathi Language

2025· article· en· W4409763820 on OpenAlexaff
Mr. Aparitosh Gahankari, Avinash S. Kapse, Mohammad Atique, V. M. Thakare, Arvind S. Kapse

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWordNetMarathiNatural language processingWord-sense disambiguationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceWord (group theory)LinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research employs the combination of the FastText model and Indo-WordNet to address the issue of word sense disambiguation (WSD) in Marathi literature. The initial iteration of the algorithm employed word pair matching as the technique to ascertain the presence of overlap between the items in the "context bag" and the "sense bag" derived from the lexical resource WordNet. The current methodology involves the computation of overlap by utilizing a semantic similarity metric that leverages fastText subword embeddings. This approach demonstrates proficiency in effectively managing unanticipated word formations, while simultaneously elucidating the inherent semantics of the terms. Significant progress has been achieved in the field of Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) for both the English language and many European languages. There is a substantial challenge to be surmounted in relation to Marathi and other languages spoken in India. The Marathi text corpus, sourced from the government of India, comprises a vast assemblage of Marathi sentences. The dataset used in this study consisted of the Indo WordNet for the Marathi language and the Marathi Online Dictionary. The results of the conducted experiments demonstrate promising discoveries. The target words that possess semantically distinct synsets in WordNet are assigned a high F1 score. The achieved F1 score of 89% above the baseline and signifies substantial advancements in compared to previous knowledge-based methodologies employed for low resource Indian languages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.382 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Scientific Research in Science and TechnologySame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207