Finding Unsupervised Alignment of Conceptual Systems in Image-Word Representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advancements in deep neural networks have led to significant progress in computer vision and natural language processing. These networks, trained on real-world stimuli, develop high-level feature representations of stimuli. It is hypothesized that these representations, stemming from different inputs, should converge into similar conceptual systems, as they reflect various perspectives of the same underlying reality. This paper examines the degree to which different conceptual systems can be aligned in an unsupervised manner, using feature-based representations from deep neural networks. Our investigation centers on the alignment between the image and word representations produced by diverse neural networks, emphasizing those trained via self-supervised learning methods. Subsequently, to probe comparable alignment patterns in human learning, we extend this examination to models trained on developmental headcam data from children. Our findings reveal a more pronounced alignment in models trained through self-supervised learning compared to supervised learning, effectively uncovering higher-level structural connections among categories. However, this alignment was notably absent in models trained with limited developmental headcam data, suggesting more data, more inductive biases, or more supervision are needed to establish alignment from realistic input.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".