Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
17
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
17 results for “Natural semantics”
Data for the Article: Cross-validation of a semantic segmentation network for natural history collection specimens
<p>This deposit contains six datasets which were used for testing and validating a semantic segmentation network. The purpose was to evaluate the suitability of the segmentation network for use in the processing of images from Natural History Collections.</p>
Figure 11. Comparison of MultiNet and MST representations-Representing Mental Spaces and Dynamics of Natural Language Semantics
<p>In the sentence (7) there are two clauses describing two hypothetical situations. These two<br> situations are connected by the relation COND in MultiNet representation (Figure 11).</p>
Figure 10. Comparison of MultiNet and MST representations.-Representing Mental Spaces and Dynamics of Natural Language Semantics
<p>Helbig [18, p. 507] defines the expression (s MCONT c) as “a specification of the<br> informational or mental content c of a mental or informational process s… By default, the second<br> argument c is assumed to be a hypothetical object or situation.”<br> MCONT relation properties are roughly equivalent to those of subject-verb complexes<br> (SVSBs) of MST. MCONT relation can generally be treated as capturing the idea behind what<br> philosophers call propositional attitudes in representational theories of mind [12] or opaque<br> contexts [10] in semantics. For example, consider the sentence in (3) rewritten below as (6) and<br> semantic representation of which is given in Figure 10.</p>
Figure 8. Comparison of MultiNet and MST representations-Representing Mental Spaces and Dynamics of Natural Language Semantics
<p>Figure 8 shows the representation of the<br> first reading of the sentence (5) in MWR. The MultiNet is shown at top of the figure, and the corresponding mental space representation is shown at the bottom side. Blue circles mark<br> hypothetical or nonreal objects and situations and red circles mark real objects and situations.<br> Facticity value for John is real, for unicorn it is nonreal, and for the process of riding, marked with<br> blue broken circle, it is non-real as well.</p>
Figure 7. The mental spaces set up by the sentence If John buys the car, he will drive to Berlin.-Representing Mental Spaces and Dynamics of Natural Language Semantics
<p>In the sentence (4) there are three proper names which constitute elements of the base space<br> or reality space (R). The CNSB if sets up the hypothetical space (H) with elements identical to those<br> of reality space (Figure 7). Every space’s internal structure is presented in the boxes next to them.<br> In the next part, we will see how MultiNet’s built-in meaning representation mechanisms are<br> capable of representing the basic principles of mental space building outlined above.</p>
Figure 6. The mental spaces set up by the sentence Mary thinks that John smokes.-Representing Mental Spaces and Dynamics of Natural Language Semantics
<p>The proper nouns Mary and John setup a base space (B). By the help of background<br> knowledge and activated frames we know that they are names of female and male humans. Not<br> having access to the previous discourse, we also consider their existence presupposed. The SVSB<br> Mary thinks that sets up a belief space (L) relative to space B (Figure 6). The identity connector<br> maintains the referential link between elements a and a ׳ both referring to the same person.</p>
Figure 9. Comparison of MultiNet and MST representations-Representing Mental Spaces and Dynamics of Natural Language Semantics
<p>Second interpretation of the sentence (5) can be represented with changing John’s Facticity<br> attribute-value from [FACT = real] to [FACT = nonreal] making the whole situation and its<br> elements non-real (Figure 9).</p>
Figure 5. The mental spaces set up by the second interpretation of the sentence in the film, John is riding a unicorn.-Representing Mental Spaces and Dynamics of Natural Language Semantics
<p>Second interpretation: The proper name John exists only in film space without having a<br> counterpart in base space. Therefore, the second interpretation of the sentence is: John is a<br> film character who is riding a unicorn in the film (Figure 5).</p>
Figure 4. The mental spaces set up by the first interpretation of the sentence in the film, John is riding a unicorn-Representing Mental Spaces and Dynamics of Natural Language Semantics
<p>First interpretation: The reality space (let’s call it R) contains an element a associated with<br> the proper name John. The noun phrase a unicorn introduces an element b ׳ to the film space<br> (call it F). I is the connector linking a in the space B to a ׳ in the space F (Figure 4). Since the<br> elements of both mental spaces are co-referential, this connector is an identity connector.<br> The rectangles represent the internal structure of the spaces next to them. The dashed line<br> indicates that the space F is set up in relation to R and that it is subordinate to R in<br> discourse.</p>
Figure 1. The upper ontology of sorts in MultiNet (after Helbig [17])-Representing Mental Spaces and Dynamics of Natural Language Semantics
<p>One of the distinguishing features of MultiNet is its commitment to the Cognitive Adequacy<br> requirement. According this requirement [9], semantic representations and knowledge<br> representations should be centered around concepts. Concepts2 are represented by nodes in the<br> graphical representation of the network. Every node belongs to a specific sort defined by the<br> MultiNet’s ontology of sorts (Figure 2).</p>
Figure 1. Mental space representation of "In the play, Mary is excited"-Representing Mental Spaces and Dynamics of Natural Language Semantics
<p>Thus an entity can have a variable reality status depending on the mental<br> space to which it belongs. The mental space constructed by the sentence Poirot is a Belgian<br> detective is a non-real imaginary story space of which Poirot is an element. But when we say in<br> reality, Poirot is not Belgian the constructed space is reality space in which Poirot (the actor, not<br> the character) does not have the fictional nationality.</p>
Figure 2. Semantic representation of the sentence Peter finished the discussion in MultiNet after Helbig [8, p. 447].-Representing Mental Spaces and Dynamics of Natural Language Semantics
<p>In Figure 3, semantic frame of the concept Finish realized in the form of the verb finish<br> requires two C-roles: An agent represented by the relation AGT, and an affected entity represented<br> by the relation AFF. Here agent is Peter and the affected entity is an abstract object ([SORT = ad]<br> means the concept is a dynamic abstraction).</p>
Natural Language Annotations for Reasoning about Program Semantics
<p>Natural language annotations about Python statements</p> <p>The dataset is made of pairs of files sharing the prefix of the filename</p> <p>* Annotations are in JSONL format (filenames ending with '_annot'), i.e. JSON objects separated by newline ('\n') characters</p> <p>* Reference source code files are in JSON format. (filenames ending with '_code')</p> <p> </p> <p>Source dataset : Programming Puzzles (Schuster et al. 2021, NeurIPS Dataset and benchmarks track) - MIT License - https://github.com/microsoft/PythonProgrammingPuzzles</p>
Data from: Intermediate acoustic-to-semantic representations link behavioural and neural responses to natural sounds
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Electrophysiological correlates of semantic dissimilarity reflect the comprehension of natural, narrative speech
People routinely hear and understand speech at rates of 120–200 words per minute [1, 2]. Thus, speech comprehension must involve rapid, online neural mechanisms that process words' meanings in an approximately time-locked fashion. However, in the context of continuous speech, electrophysiological evidence for such time-locked processing has been lacking. Whilst valuable insights into the semantic processing of speech have been provided by the "N400 component" of the event-related potential [3-6], this literature has been dominated by paradigms using incongruous words within specially constructed sentences, and may not accurately reflect natural, narrative speech comprehension. Building on the discovery that cortical activity "tracks" the dynamics of running speech [7-9], and psycholinguistic work both demonstrating [10-12] and modeling [13-15] how context rapidly impacts on word processing, we describe a new approach for deriving an electrophysiological correlate of natural speech comprehension. We used a computational model [16] to quantify the meaning carried by each word based on how semantically dissimilar it was to its preceding context and then regressed this quantity against electroencephalographic (EEG) data recorded from subjects as they listened to narrative speech. This produced a prominent negativity at a time-lag of 200–600 ms on centro-parietal EEG channels, characteristics common to the N400. Applying this approach to EEG datasets involving time-reversed speech, cocktail party attention and audiovisual speech-in-noise demonstrated that this response was very sensitive to whether or not subjects understood the speech they heard. These findings demonstrate that, when successfully comprehending natural speech, the human brain responds to the contextual semantic content of each word in a relatively time-locked fashion.
Data from: Electrophysiological correlates of semantic dissimilarity reflect the comprehension of natural, narrative speech
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
DATASET RELATED TO ARTICLE "THE SEMANTICS OF NATURAL OBJECTS AND TOOLS IN THE BRAIN: A COMBINED BEHAVIORAL AND MEG STUDY"
<p>The dataset contains behavioral, time-frequency and virtual channel data</p>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.