Or maybe it does, and they're ranked down. They do have a truth-detection phase, but it's mostly syntactic, and the top categories all have negative examples ("Hillary is not a candidate", "Hillary is not a democrat", etc.).
Wow, those are rather interesting "concepts". It's surprising most of the top results are all totally subjective (and yes highly opinionated): 'unrepentant liar', 'gas bag', 'ruthless and totally corrupt politician'...
Clearly those associated concepts didn't come from the nytimes or wikipedia, so how can they ensure accuracy when scraping these unauthoritative sources?
> "Let’s put blatant State-shtuppers such as Hillary, Bernie, and Obama at about 7 or an 8."
This matches Hearst Pattern #1 from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...:
> NP such as {NP,}*{(or, and)} NP
Hillary usually appears by herself, rather than in a list. Apparently Probase doesn't pick up the plentiful "X is a Y" associations, e.g. the "Hillary is a liar" from http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/27/poll-voters-overwhelming... or "Hillary is a candidate" from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-c...
Or maybe it does, and they're ranked down. They do have a truth-detection phase, but it's mostly syntactic, and the top categories all have negative examples ("Hillary is not a candidate", "Hillary is not a democrat", etc.).