Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31555943›Full record

ReviewCognitive processing2020

Bridging the theoretical gap between semantic representation models without the pressure of a ranking: some lessons learnt from LSA.

Guillermo Jorge-Botana, Ricardo Olmos, José María Luzón

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cognitive processing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Guillermo Jorge-BotanaUniversidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Juan del Rosal, nº 10, 28023, Madrid, Spain. gdejorge@psi.uned.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5879-6783
Ricardo OlmosUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria de Cantoblanco, C/Iván Pavlov, s/n., 28049, Madrid, Spain.
José María LuzónUniversidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Juan del Rosal, nº 10, 28023, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, latent semantic analysis (LSA) has reached a level of maturity at which its presence is ubiquitous in technology as well as in simulation of cognitive processes. In spite of this, in recent years there has been a trend of subjecting LSA to some criticisms, usually because it is compared to other models in very specific tasks and conditions and sometimes without having good knowledge of what the semantic representation of LSA means, and without exploiting all the possibilities of which LSA is capable other than the cosine. This paper provides a critical review to clarify some of the misunderstandings regarding LSA and other space models. The historical stability of the predecessors of LSA, the representational structure of word meaning and the multiple topologies that could arise from a semantic space, the computation of similarity, the myth that LSA dimensions have no meaning, the computational and algorithm plausibility to account for meaning acquisition in LSA (in contrast to others models based on online mechanisms), the possibilities of spatial models to substantiate recent proposals, and, in general, the characteristics of classic vector models and their ease and flexibility to simulate some cognitive phenomena will be reviewed. The review highlights the similarity between LSA and other techniques and proposes using long LSA experiences in other models, especially in predicting models such as word2vec. In sum, it emphasizes the lessons that can be learned from comparing LSA-based models to other models, rather than making statements about "the best."

Indexed as

LearningSemanticsAlgorithmsHumansKnowledgeModels, TheoreticalCounting modelsDistributional modelsLatent semantic analysis (LSA)Lexical dynamicityPredicting modelsSpatial modelsTopic modelword2vec

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.