Cited by 82Natural Language Processing TechniquesLexicography and Language StudiesLinguistics, Language Diversity, and Identity

Diachronic Usage Relatedness (DURel): A Framework for the Annotation of Lexical Semantic Change

Open access
Schlechtweg, Dominik, Schulte im Walde, Sabine, Eckmann, Stefanie·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers)

Abstract

Dominik Schlechtweg, Sabine Schulte im Walde, Stefanie Eckmann. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers). 2018.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/n18-2027

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 task's corpus includes pairs of sentences rated from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates identical word usage and 4 indicates completely different usage.

    “The task's corpus includes pairs of sentences rated from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates identical word usage and 4 indicates completely different usage (Schlechtweg et al., 2018).”

    From Historical Ink: Semantic Shift Detection for 19th Century Spanish (2024) · cites this paper as Schlechtweg et al., 2018

    The Sampling section says the study used pairs of sentences containing a target word. But Table 2 gives the opposite rating direction from the claim: 4 means “Identical” and 1 means “Unrelated.” (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The LSCDiscovery shared task provides over 65,000 annotated examples for 100 target words using the DURel framework.

    “The LSCDiscovery shared task (Zamora-Reina et al., 2022) provides over 65,000 annotated examples for 100 target words using the DURel framework proposed by Schlechtweg et al. (2018).”

    From Historical Ink: Semantic Shift Detection for 19th Century Spanish (2024) · cites this paper as Schlechtweg et al., 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. S. W. Brown. 2008. Choosing sense distinctions for WSD: Psycholinguistic evidence. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics on Human Language Tech- nologies: Short Papers. Stroudsburg, PA, USA, pages 249-252.
  2. P. Cook, J. H. Lau, D. McCarthy, and T. Baldwin. 2014. Novel word-sense identification. In 25th In- ternational Conference on Computational Linguis- tics, Proceedings of the Conference: Technical Pa- pers, August 23-29, 2014, Dublin, Ireland. pages 1624-1635.
  3. N. Ide and J. Pustejovsky, editors. 2017. Handbook of Linguistic Annotation. Springer, Dordrecht.
  4. H. Paul. 2002. Deutsches Wörterbuch: Bedeu- tungsgeschichte und Aufbau unseres Wortschatzes. Niemeyer, Tübingen, 10. edition.
  5. D. Schlechtweg, S. Eckmann, E. Santus, S. Schulte im Walde, and D. Hole. 2017. German in flux: Detect- ing metaphoric change via word entropy. In Pro- ceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning. Vancouver, Canada, pages 354-367.
  6. A. Soares da Silva. 1992. Homonímia e polissemia: Análise sémica e teoria do campoléxico. In Ac- tas do XIX Congreso Internacional de Lingüística e Filoloxía Románicas. Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza, La Coruña, volume 2 of Lexicoloxía e Met- alexicografía, pages 257-287.
  7. David Tuggy. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vague- ness. Cognitive Linguistics 4(3):273-290.
  8. J. Zlatev. 2003. Polysemy or generality? Mu, Mouton de Gruyter, volume 23 of Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics, pages 447-494.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schlechtweg, D., Schulte im Walde, S., & Eckmann, S.
Affiliations
University of Stuttgart (DE)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers)
Published
2018
Pages
169-174
OpenAlex
W2796841076
Cited by
77
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 3
FWCI
5.29
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB732)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Lexicography and Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics, Language Diversity, and Identity
Keywords
lexical semantic change, annotation framework, semantic change, historical linguistics

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