Abstract
Word embeddings are a powerful tool for measuring cultural meaning using large text corpora. In sociology, applications commonly estimate the meanings of concepts by projecting keywords onto axes constructed from pairs of opposing anchor keywords. At present, there are no established metrics for assessing axis reliability from embedding data. We investigate three potentially relevant forms of reliability: parallelism between offsets, synonymy between same-endpoint anchors, and antonymy between opposed anchors. Using an original
N
=
1
,
750
survey of respondents’ ratings of several hundred terms along 36 semantic dimensions plus existing ratings for 3 more, we find that parallelism robustly outperforms the other metrics in predicting the accuracy of 39,000 axes that operationalize these dimensions. Our decomposition of the parallelism–accuracy relationship between and within latent dimensions and anchor sets further shows that, while reliability is robustly related to axis accuracy at all levels, it provides a relatively weak guide for selecting specific keywords. Instead, the primary utility of parallelism may lie at higher levels of methodological decision-making: strongly identifying the most empirically tractable semantic dimension and, secondarily, suggesting the best embedding model for an anchor set.