Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25849150›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Rank diversity of languages: generic behavior in computational linguistics.

Germinal Cocho, Jorge Flores, Carlos Gershenson, Carlos Pineda, Sergio Sánchez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Dynamics of ranking.Nature communications · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Germinal CochoInstituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico; Centro de Ciencias de la Complejidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.
Jorge FloresInstituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.
Carlos GershensonInstituto de Investigaciones en Matemáticas Aplicadas y en Sistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico; Centro de Ciencias de la Complejidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.
Carlos PinedaInstituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.
Sergio SánchezFacultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Statistical studies of languages have focused on the rank-frequency distribution of words. Instead, we introduce here a measure of how word ranks change in time and call this distribution rank diversity. We calculate this diversity for books published in six European languages since 1800, and find that it follows a universal lognormal distribution. Based on the mean and standard deviation associated with the lognormal distribution, we define three different word regimes of languages: "heads" consist of words which almost do not change their rank in time, "bodies" are words of general use, while "tails" are comprised by context-specific words and vary their rank considerably in time. The heads and bodies reflect the size of language cores identified by linguists for basic communication. We propose a Gaussian random walk model which reproduces the rank variation of words in time and thus the diversity. Rank diversity of words can be understood as the result of random variations in rank, where the size of the variation depends on the rank itself. We find that the core size is similar for all languages studied.

Indexed as

LinguisticsModels, TheoreticalEuropeHumans

Identifiers

PMID25849150
PMCPMC4388647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.