ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Semantic alignment: A measure to quantify the degree of semantic equivalence for English-Chinese translation equivalents based on distributional semantics.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. 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.
- Statistical Analysis of Human and AI Machine Translation Accuracy, Style, and Context in Academic English.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2026Article
- Semantic diversity in Chinese words: Exploring its role in word recognition, lexical ambiguity, character complexity, and semantic alignment.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- LLM-driven collaborative framework for knowledge-enhanced cancer pain assessment and management.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The degree of semantic equivalence of translation pairs is typically measured by asking bilinguals to rate the semantic similarity of them or comparing the number and meaning of dictionary entries. Such measures are subjective, labor-intensive, and unable to capture the fine-grained variation in the degree of semantic equivalence. Thompson et al. (in Nature Human Behaviour, 4(10), 1029-1038, 2020) propose a computational method to quantify the extent to which translation equivalents are semantically aligned by measuring the contextual use across languages. Here, we refine this method to quantify semantic alignment of English-Chinese translation equivalents using word2vec based on the proposal that the degree of similarity between the contexts associated with a word and those of its multiple translations vary continuously. We validate our measure using semantic alignment from GloVe and fastText, and data from two behavioral datasets. The consistency of semantic alignment induced across different models confirms the robustness of our method. We demonstrate that semantic alignment not only reflects human semantic similarity judgment of translation equivalents but also captures bilinguals' usage frequency of translations. We also show that our method is more cognitively plausible than Thompson et al.'s method. Furthermore, the correlations between semantic alignment and key psycholinguistic factors mirror those between human-rated semantic similarity and these variables, indicating that computed semantic alignment reflects the degree of semantic overlap of translation equivalents in the bilingual mental lexicon. We further provide the largest English-Chinese translation equivalent dataset to date, encompassing 50,088 translation pairs for 15,734 English words, their dominant Chinese translation equivalents, and their semantic alignment Rc values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39779598What 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.