The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
WordNet: a lexical database for English
Open accessAbstract
Because meaningful sentences are composed of meaningful words, any system that hopes to process natural languages as people do must have information about words and their meanings. This information is traditionally provided through dictionaries, and machine-readable dictionaries are now widely available. But dictionary entries evolved for the convenience of human readers, not for machines. WordNet 1 provides a more effective combination of traditional lexicographic information and modern computing. WordNet is an online lexical database designed for use under program control. English nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs are organized into sets of synonyms, each representing a lexicalized concept. Semantic relations link the synonym sets [4].
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Hierarchical relations are prevalent and indispensable for organizing human knowledge captured by a knowledge graph (KG).”
From Modeling Heterogeneous Hierarchies with Relation-specific Hyperbolic Cones (2021) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In fact, knowledge about hierarchical relations (i.e., transitive closure) is explicitly available in the definition of the relation in KGs such as ConceptNet [28], WordNet [8] and Gene Ontology [9].”
From Modeling Heterogeneous Hierarchies with Relation-specific Hyperbolic Cones (2021) · cites this paper as [8]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“WN18RR is a subset of WordNet [8], which features lexical relationships between word senses.”
From Modeling Heterogeneous Hierarchies with Relation-specific Hyperbolic Cones (2021) · cites this paper as [8]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database *
Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. J. (1990) · International Journal of Lexicography · doi:10.1093/ijl/3.4.235 · Cited by 4,197
Self-citationFREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH USAGE: LEXICON AND GRAMMAR
Francis, W. N., Kučera, H., & Mackie, A. W. (1983) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,310
Contextual correlates of semantic similarity
Miller, G. A., & Charles, W. G. (1991) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690969108406936 · Cited by 1,634 · cited 1×
“Miller and Charles [ 5 ] proposed that a contextual representation associated with each sense characterizes sentential contexts in which a given word can be used to express that sense.”
BackgroundSelf-citationMiller, G. A., Leacock, C., Tengi, R., & Bunker, R. T. (1993) · DARPA Workshop on Speech and Natural Language (HLT) · doi:10.3115/1075671.1075742 · Cited by 612 · cited 1×
“Semantic concordances are being prepared to provide a basis for empirical studies of sense identification [7].”
BackgroundSelf-citationMiller, G. A., & Fellbaum, C. (1991) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(91)90036-4 · Cited by 452 · cited 1×
“The semantic relations in WordNet [6] were chosen because they apply broadly throughout English and because they are familiar— a user need not have advanced training in linguistics to understand them.”
MethodSelf-citationTowards Building Contextual Representations of Word Senses Using Statistical Models
Leacock, C., Towell, G. G., & Voorhees, E. M. (1993) · Cited by 29
The categorization of sentential contexts
Charles, W. G. (1988) · Journal of Psycholinguistic Research · doi:10.1007/bf01067226 · Cited by 12 · cited 1×
“People are quite skillful in making such distinctions [1].”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Francis W. N., 1982, Mass.
- Leacock C., 1993, Proceedings of the Workshop on the Acquisition of Lexical Knowledge from Text, 10
- Miller G. A., 1992, B. Levin and, 197
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge
Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., Huang, Z., Karpathy, A., Khosla, A., Bernstein, M., et al. (2015) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-015-0816-y · Cited by 39,380
“By us-ing WordNet as a backbone (Miller, 1995), ImageNet already takes care of disambiguating word meanings and of combining together synonyms into the same object category.”
BackgroundLearning Multiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images
Krizhevsky, A. (2024) · doi:10.57702/zp44cu3g · Cited by 23,889
Shin, H.-C., Roth, H. R., Gao, M., Lu, L., Xu, Z., Nogues, I., Yao, J., Mollura, D., & Summers, R. M. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2016.2528162 · Cited by 5,759
Visual Genome: Connecting Language and Vision Using Crowdsourced Dense Image Annotations
Krishna, R., Zhu, Y., Groth, O., Johnson, J., Hata, K., Kravitz, J., Chen, S., Kalantidis, Y., Li, L.-J., Shamma, D. A., et al. (2017) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-016-0981-7 · Cited by 5,107
“32 × 32 pixels) images that were collected using WordNet (Miller 1995) synsets as queries.”
MethodInfluentialDRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud.
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.204 · Cited by 4,500
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, G. A.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Miller, George A.
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 1995-11
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 39-41
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2081580037
- Semantic Scholar
- 68c03788224000794d5491ab459be0b2a2c38677
- Cited by
- 14,015
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 335 · 2025: 506 · 2024: 575 · 2023: 721 · 2022: 707 · 2021: 1008 · 2020: 1071 · 2019: 1068 · 2018: 961 · 2017: 841 · 2016: 816 · 2015: 855 · 2014: 723 · 2013: 633 · 2012: 565
- FWCI
- 38.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- James S. McDonnell Foundation
- Advanced Research Projects Agency
- Office of Naval Research
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Lexicography and Language Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Semantic Web and Ontologies
- Keywords
- WordNet, lexical databases, synonym sets, semantic relations, word meaning, natural language processing, machine-readable dictionaries, English vocabulary
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
