Bibliographic record
Abstract
In statistical parsing with CCG, the standard evaluation method is based on predicate-argument structure and evaluates dependencies labelled in part by lexical categories. When a predicate has multiple argument slots that can be filled, the same lexical category is used for the label of multiple dependencies. In this paper, we show that this evaluation can result in disproportionate penalization of supertagging errors and obfuscate the truly erroneous dependencies. Enabled by the compositional nature of CCG lexical categories, we propose decomposed scoring based on subcategorial labels to address this.To evaluate our scoring method, we engage fellow categorial grammar researchers in two English-language judgement tasks: (1) directly ranking the outputs of the standard and experimental scoring methods; and (2) determining which of two sentences has the better parse in cases where the two scoring methods disagree on their ranks. Overall, the judges prefer decomposed scoring in each task; but there is substantial disagreement among the judges in 24% of the given cases, pointing to potential issues with parser evaluations in general.
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 | 0.020 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".