1,721,077 research outputs found
Open SDP 1.2
No full textThe original SDP 2014 and 2015 data collections were made available under task-specific ‘evaluation’ licenses to registered SemEval participants. In mid-2016, all original data has been bundled with system submissions, supporting software, an additional SDP-style collection of semantic dependency graphs, and additional background material (from which some of the SDP target representations were derived) for release through the Linguistic Data Consortium (with LDC catalogue number LDC2016 T10).
One of the four English target representations (viz. DM) and the entire Czech data (in the PSD target representation) are not derivative of LDC-licensed annotations and, thus, can be made available for direct download (Open SDP; version 1.2; January 2017) under a more permissive licensing scheme, viz. the Creative Common Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. This package also includes some ‘richer’ meaning representations from which the English bi-lexical DM graphs derive, viz. scope-underspecified logical forms and more abstract, non-lexicalized ‘semantic networks’. The latter of these are formally (if not linguistically) similar to Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) and are available in a range of serializations, including in AMR-like syntax.
Version 1.1 was released April 2016. Version 1.2 adds the 2015 Turku system, which was accidentally left out from version 1.1.
Please use the following bibliographic reference for the SDP 2016 data:
@string{C:LREC = {{I}nternational {C}onference on
{L}anguage {R}esources and {E}valuation}}
@string{LREC:16 = {Proceedings of the 10th } # C:LREC}
@string{L:LREC:16 = {Portoro\v{z}, Slovenia}}
@inproceedings{Oep:Kuh:Miy:16,
author = {Oepen, Stephan and Kuhlmann, Marco and Miyao, Yusuke
and Zeman, Daniel and Cinkov{\'a}, Silvie
and Flickinger, Dan and Haji\v{c}, Jan
and Ivanova, Angelina and Ure\v{s}ov{\'a}, Zde\v{n}ka},
title = {Towards Comparability of Linguistic Graph Banks for Semantic Parsing},
booktitle = LREC:16
year = 2016,
address = L:LREC:16,
pages = {3991--3995}
Open SDP
No full textThe original SDP 2014 and 2015 data collections were made available under task-specific ‘evaluation’ licenses to registered SemEval participants. In mid-2016, all original data has been bundled with system submissions, supporting software, an additional SDP-style collection of semantic dependency graphs, and additional background material (from which some of the SDP target representations were derived) for release through the Linguistic Data Consortium (with LDC catalogue number LDC2016 T10).
One of the four English target representations (viz. DM) and the entire Czech data (in the PSD target representation) are not derivative of LDC-licensed annotations and, thus, can be made available for direct download (Open SDP; version 1.1; April 2016) under a more permissive licensing scheme, viz. the Creative Common Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. This package also includes some ‘richer’ meaning representations from which the English bi-lexical DM graphs derive, viz. scope-underspecified logical forms and more abstract, non-lexicalized ‘semantic networks’. The latter of these are formally (if not linguistically) similar to Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) and are available in a range of serializations, including in AMR-like syntax.
Please use the following bibliographic reference for the SDP 2016 data:
@string{C:LREC = {{I}nternational {C}onference on
{L}anguage {R}esources and {E}valuation}}
@string{LREC:16 = {Proceedings of the 10th } # C:LREC}
@string{L:LREC:16 = {Portoro\v{z}, Slovenia}}
@inproceedings{Oep:Kuh:Miy:16,
author = {Oepen, Stephan and Kuhlmann, Marco and Miyao, Yusuke
and Zeman, Daniel and Cinkov{\'a}, Silvie
and Flickinger, Dan and Haji\v{c}, Jan
and Ivanova, Angelina and Ure\v{s}ov{\'a}, Zde\v{n}ka},
title = {Towards Comparability of Linguistic Graph Banks for Semantic Parsing},
booktitle = LREC:16
year = 2016,
address = L:LREC:16,
pages = {3991--3995}
Bootstrapping an Unsupervised Approach for Classifying Agreement and Disagreement
No full textPeople tend to have various opinions about topics. In discussions, they can either agree or disagree with another person. The recognition of agreement and disagreement is a useful prerequisite for many applications. It could be used by political scientists to measure how controversial political issues are, or help a company to analyze how well people like their new products.
In this work, we develop an approach for recognizing agreement and disagreement. However, this is a challenging task.
While keyword-based approaches are only able to cover a limited set of phrases, machine learning approaches require a large amount of training data. We therefore combine advantages of both methods by using a bootstrapping approach. With our completely unsupervised technique, we achieve an accuracy of 72.85%. Besides, we investigate the limitations of a keyword based approach and a machine learning approach in addition to comparing various sets of features
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
