ArticleFrontiers in psychology2019
Mining a Crowdsourced Dictionary to Understand Consistency and Preference in Word Meanings.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Large-Scale Social Feedback and Language Usage: a Distributional Analysis.Computational brain & behavior · 2025Article
- Apriori Algorithm for the Data Mining of Global Cyberspace Security Issues for Human Participatory Based on Association Rules.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Commentary: Principles, Approaches and Challenges of Applying Big Data in Safety Psychology Research.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Big data approaches to psychology have become increasing popular (Jones, 2017). Two of the main developments of this line of research is the advent of distributional models of semantics (e.g., Landauer and Dumais, 1997), which learn the meaning of words from large text corpora, and the collection of mega datasets of human behavior (e.g., The English lexicon project; Balota et al., 2007). The current article combines these two approaches, with the goal being to understand the consistency and preference that people have for word meanings. This was accomplished by mining a large amount of data from an online, crowdsourced dictionary and analyzing this data with a distributional model. Overall, it was found that even for words that are not an active part of the language environment, there is a large amount of consistency in the word meanings that different people have. Additionally, it was demonstrated that users of a language have strong preferences for word meanings, such that definitions to words that do not conform to people's conceptions are rejected by a community of language users. The results of this article provides insights into the cultural evolution of word meanings, and sheds light on alternative methodologies that can be used to understand lexical behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.