Cited by 305Topic ModelingDigital Humanities and ScholarshipNatural Language Processing Techniques

Temporal Analysis of Language through Neural Language Models

Open access
Kim, Yoon, Chiu, Yi-I, Hanaki, Kentaro, Hegde, Darshan, Petrov, Slav·2014·Proceedings of the ACL 2014 Workshop on Language Technologies and Computational Social Science

Abstract

We provide a method for automatically detecting change in language across time through a chronologically trained neural language model. We train the model on the Google Books Ngram corpus to obtain word vector representations specific to each year, and identify words that have changed significantly from 1900 to 2009. The model identifies words such as "cell" and "gay" as having changed during that time period. The model simultaneously identifies the specific years during which such words underwent change.

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 · 10.3115/v1/w14-2517

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • Rodman (2020) tested four different methods by comparing results to the gold standard, and the chronologically trained model (Kim et al. 2014) was the best performer.

    “Rodman (2020) tests four different methods by comparing results to the gold standard; ultimately, the chronologically trained model (Kim et al. 2014) is the best performer.”

    From Embedding Regression: Models for Context-Specific Description and Inference (2023) · cites this paper as Kim et al. 2014

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

1 of the 16 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, Y., Chiu, Y.-I., Hanaki, K., Hegde, D., & Petrov, S.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the ACL 2014 Workshop on Language Technologies and Computational Social Science
Published
2014
Pages
61-65
OpenAlex
W2102343050
Cited by
305
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1
FWCI
9.82
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Digital Humanities and Scholarship
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
word embeddings, word vector representation

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