Exploring Vector Representations for Phonological Similarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has compared representation models of word meaning (Brown et al., 2023, Cognitive Science 47:e13291), however, less research has compared representation models of words’ perceptual features. Thus, we compared vector-space word representation models that can be used to quantify words’ phonological similarity. The main structure of the model was adapted from Cox et al.’s orthographic representation model (Behavior Research Methods 43:602-15, 2011). Variations of the model included phonetic mapping scheme, encoding scheme, the inclusion of lexical stress, and the combination of orthographic and phonological representations. We tested the model variants against human-rated phonological similarity and both phonological and orthographic Damerau-Levenshtein distance. Open n-gram encoding (1 ≤ n ≤ 2) performed better overall than terminal relative encoding across all phonological similarity metrics. Concatenated orthographic-phonological vectors improved the prediction of human ratings with terminal-relative encoding only. Using more fine-grained phonetic mapping or including lexical stress had minimal effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".