MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6962966103 · doi:10.17632/thtndvvp9s.4

Miller_and_Charles_with_concepts_senses

2021· dataset· en· W6962966103 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnvironmental Science and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemantic similaritySimilarity (geometry)Semantics (computer science)Context (archaeology)Computational linguisticsDistributional semanticsMetric (unit)Semantic computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset represents the results of the experimentation of a method for evaluating semantic similarity between concepts in a taxonomy. The method is based on the information-theoretic approach and allows senses of concepts in a given context to be considered. The dataset is composed of 28 files. Each file refers to one pair of the well-known Miller and Charles benchmark dataset [1] for assessing semantic similarity. For each pair of concepts, the same 28 pairs are all considered as possible different contexts. We applied our proposal by extending 7 methods for computing semantic similarity in a taxonomy, selected from the literature. The methods considered in the experiment are referred to as (R[2], W&P[3], L[4], J&C[5], P&S[6], A[7], A&M[8]): REFERENCES [1] Miller, G.A., Charles, W.G. Contextual correlates of semantic similarity. Language and Cognitive Processes 6(1), 1-28 (1991) [2] Resnik, P. {\em Using Information Content to Evaluate Semantic Similarity in a Taxonomy}. In Proc. of the Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, August 20-25, Morgan Kaufmann, 448-453 (1995)]. [3] Wu, Z., Palmer, M. Verb semantics and lexical selection. In Proc. of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Associations for Computational Linguistics, Las Cruces, New Mexico, 133-138 (1994). [4] Lin, D. An Information-Theoretic Definition of Similarity. In Proceedings of the Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Morgan Kaufmann, 296-304 (1998). [5] Jiang, J.J., Conrath, D.W. Semantic Similarity Based on Corpus Statistics and Lexical Taxonomy. In Proc. of Inter. Conf. Research on Computational Linguistics (ROCLING X), Taiwan (1997). [6] Pirrò, G. A Semantic Similarity Metric Combining Features and Intrinsic Information Content. Data Knowl. Eng, 68(11), 1289-1308 (2009). [7] Adhikari, A., Dutta, B., Dutta, A., Mondal, D., Singh, S. An intrinsic information content-based semantic similarity measure considering the disjoint common subsumers of concepts of an ontology. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 69(8), 1023-1034 (2018). [8] Adhikari, A., Singh, S., Mondal, D., Dutta, B., Dutta, A. A Novel Information Theoretic Framework for Finding Semantic Similarity in WordNet. CoRR, arXiv:1607.05422, abs/1607.05422 (2016). Finally, in each file, the correlation of our proposal with respect to human judgement is reported.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.009

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicEnvironmental Science and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207