1,720,994 research outputs found
sj-docx-1-ivi-10.1177_14738716231168671 – Supplemental material for TopoBERT: Exploring the topology of fine-tuned word representations
No full textSupplemental material, sj-docx-1-ivi-10.1177_14738716231168671 for TopoBERT: Exploring the topology of fine-tuned word representations by Archit Rathore, Yichu Zhou, Vivek Srikumar and Bei Wang in Information Visualization</p
sj-pdf-2-ivi-10.1177_14738716231168671 – Supplemental material for TopoBERT: Exploring the topology of fine-tuned word representations
No full textSupplemental material, sj-pdf-2-ivi-10.1177_14738716231168671 for TopoBERT: Exploring the topology of fine-tuned word representations by Archit Rathore, Yichu Zhou, Vivek Srikumar and Bei Wang in Information Visualization</p
Right for the Right Reason: Evidence Extraction for Trustworthy Tabular Reasoning
No full textThis repository contains resources developed for the paper: Gupta, V., Zhang, S., Vempala, A., He, Y., Choji, T., Srikumar V., Right for the Right Reason: Evidence Extraction for Trustworthy Tabular Reasoning. In: Proceeding of the The Association of Computational Linguistic 2022 (ACL ’22), May 2022".
It includes the relevant rows marking for the train set of the InfoTabS dataset (https://infotabs.github.io/) Gupta et. al. 2020 [1].
We followed the protocol of Gupta et al. (2022) [2] which annotated the development and test sets (alpha1, alpha2, alpha3) sets: one table and three distinct hypotheses formed a HIT. We divide the tasks equally into 110 batches, each batch having 51 HITs each having three examples. In total, we collected 81,282 annotations from 90 distinct annotators.
Overall, twenty five annotators completed over 1000 tasks, corresponding to 87.75 % of the examples, indicating a tail distribution with the annotations. Overall, 16,248 training set table-hypothesis pairs were successfully labeled with the evidence rows. On average, we obtain 89.49% F1-score with equal precision and recall for annotation agreement when compared with majority vote. It also includes an annotation template used on the mTurk platform for crowdsourcing. The cited datasets were used in this work. The cited datasets were used in this work.
Files to access the annotation follow the below structure:
annotation_batches
batches_test: contain final results “.csv” files for all the development and test set batches (taken from Gupta et. al. 2022)
batches_train: contain our annotated results “.csv” files for all the train set batches
README.md: contain the readme for the annotation batches details
main_template_row_relevant.html: content the annotation template used for each HIT i.e. marking the relevant row for each instance
annotation_stats.md: Have details of the annotation statistics
release_mturk: contain the release batches details i.e. csv for corresponding batches released
Files to recreate the annotation statistics and pre-processed data:
results_test: contain the pre-processed batch csv for dev and test set each batch. In the dev and test set. The integrated one computes the agreement stats for all the batches.(taken from Gupta et. al. 2022)
results_train: similar to resutls_train expect contain the pre-processed batch csv for train set.
scripts: contain the scripts needed to create the csv in the results_test and results_train sets. The script title denotes the function (the statistic it computes) for the scripts.
src: the scripts use these python files to create the relevant statistics.
References:
[1] InfoTabS: Inference on Tables as Semi-structured Data, Vivek Gupta, Maitrey Mehta, Pegah Nokhiz, Vivek Srikumar, ACL 2020
[2] Is My Model Using The Right Evidence? Systematic Probes for Examining Evidence-Based Tabular Reasoning, Vivek Gupta, Riyaz A. Bhat, Atreya Ghosal, Manish Srivastava, Maneesh Singh, Vivek Srikumar, TACL 2022, presented at ACL 202
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe 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
Get PDF“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
Get PDFWe 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
Get PDFWe 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
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
- …
