LlamATE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the past decades, automatic term or terminology extraction (ATE), a natural language processing (NLP) task that aims to identify terms from specific domains by providing a list of candidate terms, has been challenging due to the strong influence of domain-specific differences on term definitions. Leveraging the advances of large-scale language models (LLMs), we propose LlamATE , a framework to verify the impact of domain specificity on ATE when using in-context learning prompts in open-sourced LLM-based chat models, namely Llama-2-Chat . We evaluate how well the LLM-based chat (e.g., using reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF)) models perform with different levels of domain-related information in the dominant language in NLP research (e.g., English) and other European languages (e.g., French, Slovene) from ACTER datasets, i.e., in-domain and cross-domain demonstrations with and without domain enunciation. Furthermore, we examine the potential of cross-lingual and cross-domain prompting to reduce the need for extensive data annotation of the target domain and language. The results demonstrate the potential of implicit in-domain learning where examples of the target domain are used as demonstrations for the prompts without specifying the domain of each example, and cross-lingual learning when knowledge is transferred from the dominant to lesser-represented European languages as for the data used to pre-train the LLMs. LlamATE also offers a valuable compromise by reducing the need for extensive data annotation, making it suitable for real-world applications where labeled corpora are scarce. The source code is publicly available at the following link: https://github.com/honghanhh/terminology2024 .
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.127 | 0.141 |
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".