File size: 83,659 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 | {
"paper_id": "P99-1032",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:31:35.383812Z"
},
"title": "Development and Use of a Gold-Standard Data Set for Subjectivity Classifications",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Janyce",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Wiebet",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "Computing Research Laboratory",
"institution": "New Mexico State University",
"location": {
"settlement": "Las Cruces",
"region": "NM"
}
},
"email": "wiebe@nmsu.edu"
},
{
"first": "Thomas",
"middle": [
"P"
],
"last": "O'harat",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "Computing Research Laboratory",
"institution": "New Mexico State University",
"location": {
"settlement": "Las Cruces",
"region": "NM"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "This paper presents a case study of analyzing and improving intercoder reliability in discourse tagging using statistical techniques. Biascorrected tags are formulated and successfully used to guide a revision of the coding manual and develop an automatic classifier.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P99-1032",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "This paper presents a case study of analyzing and improving intercoder reliability in discourse tagging using statistical techniques. Biascorrected tags are formulated and successfully used to guide a revision of the coding manual and develop an automatic classifier.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "This paper presents a case study of analyzing and improving intercoder reliability in discourse tagging using the statistical techniques presented in ; Bruce and Wiebe, to appear). Our approach is data driven: we refine our understanding and presentation of the classification scheme guided by the results of the intercoder analysis. We also present the results of a probabilistic classifier developed on the resulting annotations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Much research in discourse processing has focused on task-oriented and instructional dialogs. The task addressed here comes to the fore in other genres, especially news reporting. The task is to distinguish sentences used to objectively present factual information from sentences used to present opinions and evaluations. There are many applications for which this distinction promises to be important, including text categorization and summarization. This research takes a large step toward developing a reliably annotated gold standard to support experimenting with such applications.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "This research is also a case study of analyzing and improving manual tagging that is applicable to any tagging task. We perform a statistical analysis that provides information that complements the information provided by Cohen's Kappa (Cohen, 1960; Carletta, 1996) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 222,
"end": 249,
"text": "Cohen's Kappa (Cohen, 1960;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 265,
"text": "Carletta, 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In particular, we analyze patterns of agreement to identify systematic disagreements that result from relative bias among judges, because they can potentially be corrected automatically. The corrected tags serve two purposes in this work. They are used to guide the revision of the coding manual, resulting in improved Kappa scores, and they serve as a gold standard for developing a probabilistic classifier. Using bias-corrected tags as gold-standard tags is one way to define a single best tag when there are multiple judges who disagree.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The coding manual and data from our experiments are available at: http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~wiebe/projects.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In the remainder of this paper, we describe the classification being performed (in section 2), the statistical tools used to analyze the data and produce the bias-corrected tags (in section 3), the case study of improving intercoder agreement (in section 4), and the results of the classifter for automatic subjectivity tagging (in section 5).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We address evidentiality in text (Chafe, 1986) , which concerns issues such as what is the source of information, and whether information is being presented as fact or opinion. These questions are particularly important in news reporting, in which segments presenting opinions and verbal reactions are mixed with segments presenting objective fact (van Dijk, 1988; Kan et al., 1998) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 46,
"text": "(Chafe, 1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 364,
"text": "(van Dijk, 1988;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 382,
"text": "Kan et al., 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Categories",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The definitions of the categories in our cod-ing manual are intention-based: \"If the primary intention of a sentence is objective presentation of material that is factual to the reporter, the sentence is objective. Otherwise, the sentence is subjective.\" 1 We focus on sentences about private states, such as belief, knowledge, emotions, etc. (Quirk et al., 1985) , and sentences about speech events, such as speaking and writing. Such sentences may be either subjective or objective. From the coding manual: \"Subjective speech-event (and private-state) sentences are used to communicate the speaker's evaluations, opinions, emotions, and speculations. The primary intention of objective speech-event (and privatestate) sentences, on the other hand, is to objectively communicate material that is factual to the reporter. The speaker, in these cases, is being used as a reliable source of information.\" Following are examples of subjective and objective sentences:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 343,
"end": 363,
"text": "(Quirk et al., 1985)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Categories",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "1. At several different levels, it's a fascinating tale. Subjective sentence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Categories",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "2. Bell Industries Inc. increased its quarterly to 10 cents from seven cents a share. Objective sentence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Categories",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "3. Northwest Airlines settled the remaining lawsuits filed on behalf of 156 people killed in a 1987 crash, but claims against the jetliner's maker axe being pursued, a federal judge said. Objective speech-event sentence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Categories",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "4. The South African Broadcasting Corp. said the song \"Freedom Now\" was \"undesirable for broadcasting.\" Subjective speech-event sentence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Categories",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In sentence 4, there is no uncertainty or evaluation expressed toward the speaking event. Thus, from one point of view, one might have considered this sentence to be objective. However, the object of the sentence is not presented as material that is factual to the reporter, so the sentence is classified as subjective.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Categories",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Linguistic categorizations usually do not cover all instances perfectly. For example, sen-1 The category specifications in the coding manual axe based on our previous work on tracking point of view (Wiebe, 1994) , which builds on Banfield's (1982) linguistic theory of subjectivity. tences may fall on the borderline between two categories. To allow for uncertainty in the annotation process, the specific tags used in this work include certainty ratings, ranging from 0, for least certain, to 3, for most certain. As discussed below in section 3.2, the certainty ratings allow us to investigate whether a model positing additional categories provides a better description of the judges' annotations than a binary model does.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 198,
"end": 211,
"text": "(Wiebe, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 247,
"text": "Banfield's (1982)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Categories",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Subjective and objective categories are potentially important for many text processing applications, such as information extraction and information retrieval, where the evidential status of information is important. In generation and machine translation, it is desirable to generate text that is appropriately subjective or objective (Hovy, 1987) . In summarization, subjectivity judgments could be included in document profiles, to augment automatically produced document summaries, and to help the user make relevance judgments when using a search engine. In addition, they would be useful in text categorization. In related work (Wiebe et al., in preparation) , we found that article types, such as announcement and opinion piece, are significantly correlated with the subjective and objective classification.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 334,
"end": 346,
"text": "(Hovy, 1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 632,
"end": 662,
"text": "(Wiebe et al., in preparation)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Categories",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Our subjective category is related to but differs from the statement-opinion category of the Switchboard-DAMSL discourse annotation project (Jurafsky et al., 1997) , as well as the gives opinion category of Bale's (1950) model of small-group interaction. All involve expressions of opinion, but while our category specifications focus on evidentiality in text, theirs focus on how conversational participants interact with one another in dialog. Table 1 presents data for two judges. The rows correspond to the tags assigned by judge 1 and the columns correspond to the tags assigned by judge 2. Let nij denote the number of sentences that judge 1 classifies as i and judge 2 classifies as j, and let/~ij be the probability that a randomly selected sentence is categorized as i by judge 1 and j by judge 2. Then, the maximum likelihood estimate of 15ij is ~ where n_l_ + , n++ = ~ij nij = 504. Table ration , in which certainty ratings 0 and 1 are combined and ratings 2 and 3 are combined. Note that the analyses described in this section cannot be performed on the two-category data configuration (in which the certainty ratings are not considered), due to insufficient degrees of freedom (Bishop et al., 1975) . Table 1 can be found in the marginal totals, ni+ and n+j. We see that judge 1 has a relative preference, or bias, for objective, while judge 2 has a bias for subjective. Relative bias is one aspect of agreement among judges. A second is whether the judges' disagreements are systematic, that is, correlated. One pattern of systematic disagreement is symmetric disagreement. When disagreement is symmetric, the differences between the actual counts, and the counts expected if the judges' decisions were not correlated, are symmetric; that is, 5n~j = 5n~i for i ~ j, where 5ni~ is the difference from independence.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 163,
"text": "(Jurafsky et al., 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 1193,
"end": 1214,
"text": "(Bishop et al., 1975)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 446,
"end": 453,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
},
{
"start": 894,
"end": 908,
"text": "Table ration",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1217,
"end": 1224,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Categories",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Our goal is to correct correlated disagreements automatically. We are particularly interested in systematic disagreements resulting from relative bias. We test for evidence of such correlations by fitting probability models to the data. Specifically, we study bias using the model for marginal homogeneity, and symmetric disagreement using the model for quasisymmetry. When there is such evidence, we propose using the latent class model to correct the disagreements; this model posits an unobserved (latent) variable to explain the correlations among the judges' observations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evidence of confusion among the classifications in",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The remainder of this section describes these models in more detail. All models can be evaluated using the freeware package CoCo, which was developed by Badsberg (1995) and is available at: http://web.math.auc.dk/-jhb/CoCo.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 153,
"end": 168,
"text": "Badsberg (1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evidence of confusion among the classifications in",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A probability model enforces constraints on the counts in the data. The degree to which the counts in the data conform to the constraints is called the fit of the model. In this work, model fit is reported in terms of the likelihood ratio statistic, G 2, and its significance (Read and Cressie, 1988; Dunning, 1993) . The higher the G 2 value, the poorer the fit. We will consider model fit to be acceptable if its reference significance level is greater than 0.01 (i.e., if there is greater than a 0.01 probability that the data sample was randomly selected from a population described by the model).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 276,
"end": 300,
"text": "(Read and Cressie, 1988;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 315,
"text": "Dunning, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Patterns of Disagreement",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Bias of one judge relative to another is evidenced as a discrepancy between the marginal totals for the two judges (i.e., ni+ and n+j in Table 1 ). Bias is measured by testing the fit of the model for marginal homogeneity: ~i+ = P+i for all i. The larger the G 2 value, the greater the bias. The fit of the model can be evaluated as described on pages 293-294 of Bishop et al. (1975) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 363,
"end": 383,
"text": "Bishop et al. (1975)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 137,
"end": 144,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Patterns of Disagreement",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Judges who show a relative bias do not always agree, but their judgments may still be correlated. As an extreme example, judge 1 may assign the subjective tag whenever judge 2 assigns the objective tag. In this example, there is a kind of symmetry in the judges' responses, but their agreement would be low. Patterns of symmetric disagreement can be identified using the model for quasi-symmetry. This model constrains the off-diagonal counts, i.e., the counts that correspond to disagreement. It states that these counts are the product of a table for independence and a symmetric table, nij = hi+ \u00d7 )~+j \u00d7/~ij, such that /kij = )~ji. In this formula, )~i+ \u00d7 ,k+j is the model for independence and ),ij is the symmetric interaction term. Intuitively, /~ij represents the difference between the actual counts and those predicted by independence. This model can be evaluated using CoCo as described on pages 289-290 of Bishop et al. (1975) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 918,
"end": 938,
"text": "Bishop et al. (1975)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 543,
"end": 588,
"text": "table for independence and a symmetric table,",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Patterns of Disagreement",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "We use the latent class model to correct symmetric disagreements that appear to result from bias. The latent class model was first introduced by Lazarsfeld (1966) and was later made computationally efficient by Goodman (1974) . Goodman's procedure is a specialization of the EM algorithm (Dempster et al., 1977) , which is implemented in the freeware program CoCo (Badsberg, 1995) . Since its development, the latent class model has been widely applied, and is the underlying model in various unsupervised machine learning algorithms, including Auto-Class (Cheeseman and Stutz, 1996) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 145,
"end": 162,
"text": "Lazarsfeld (1966)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 225,
"text": "Goodman (1974)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 311,
"text": "(Dempster et al., 1977)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 364,
"end": 380,
"text": "(Badsberg, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 556,
"end": 583,
"text": "(Cheeseman and Stutz, 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Producing Bias-Corrected Tags",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "The form of the latent class model is that of naive Bayes: the observed variables are all conditionally independent of one another, given the value of the latent variable. The latent variable represents the true state of the object, and is the source of the correlations among the observed variables.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Producing Bias-Corrected Tags",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "As applied here, the observed variables are the classifications assigned by the judges. Let B, D, J, and M be these variables, and let L be the latent variable. Then, the latent class model is:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Producing Bias-Corrected Tags",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "p(b,d,j,m,l) = p(bll)p(dll)p(jll)p(mll)p(l ) (by C.I. assumptions) p( b, l )p( d, l )p(j , l )p( m, l) p(t)3 (by definition)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Producing Bias-Corrected Tags",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "The parameters of the model",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Producing Bias-Corrected Tags",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "are {p(b, l),p(d, l),p(j, l),p(m, l)p(l)}.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Producing Bias-Corrected Tags",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Once estimates of these parameters are obtained, each clause can be assigned the most probable latent category given the tags assigned by the judges. The EM algorithm takes as input the number of latent categories hypothesized, i.e., the number of values of L, and produces estimates of the parameters. For a description of this process, see Goodman (1974) , Dawid & Skene (1979) , or Pedersen & Bruce (1998) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 342,
"end": 356,
"text": "Goodman (1974)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 379,
"text": "Dawid & Skene (1979)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 385,
"end": 408,
"text": "Pedersen & Bruce (1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Producing Bias-Corrected Tags",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Three versions of the latent class model are considered in this study, one with two latent categories, one with three latent categories, and one with four. We apply these models to three data configurations: one with two categories (subjective and objective with no certainty ratings), one with four categories (subjective and objective with coarse-grained certainty ratings, as shown in Table 1 ), and one with eight categories (subjective and objective with fine-grained certainty ratings). All combinations of model and data configuration are evaluated, except the four-category latent class model with the twocategory data configuration, due to insufficient degrees of freedom.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 388,
"end": 395,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Producing Bias-Corrected Tags",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "In all cases, the models fit the data well, as measured by G 2. The model chosen as final is the one for which the agreement among the latent categories assigned to the three data configurations is highest, that is, the model that is most consistent across the three data configurations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Producing Bias-Corrected Tags",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Our annotation project consists of the following steps: 2 1. A first draft of the coding instructions is developed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Improving Agreement in Discourse Tagging",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "2. Four judges annotate a corpus according to the first coding manual, each spending about four hours.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Improving Agreement in Discourse Tagging",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "3. The annotated corpus is statistically analyzed using the methods presented in section 3, and bias-corrected tags are produced.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Improving Agreement in Discourse Tagging",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "4. The judges are given lists of sentences for which their tags differ from the biascorrected tags. Judges M, D, and J participate in interactive discussions centered around the differences. In addition, after reviewing his or her list of differences, each judge provides feedback, agreeing with the 2The results of the first three steps are reported in (Bruce and Wiebe, to appear).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Improving Agreement in Discourse Tagging",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "bias-corrected tag in many cases, but arguing for his or her own tag in some cases. Based on the judges' feedback, 22 of the 504 bias-corrected tags are changed, and a second draft of the coding manual is written.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Improving Agreement in Discourse Tagging",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "A second corpus is annotated by the same four judges according to the new coding manual. Each spends about five hours.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "6. The results of the second tagging experiment are analyzed using the methods described in section 3, and bias-corrected tags are produced for the second data set.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Two disjoint corpora are used in steps 2 and 5, both consisting of complete articles taken from the Wall Street Journal Treebank Corpus (Marcus et al., 1993) . In both corpora, judges assign tags to each non-compound sentence and to each conjunct of each compound sentence, 504 in the first corpus and 500 in the second. The segmentation of compound sentences was performed manually before the judges received the data.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 157,
"text": "(Marcus et al., 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Judges J and B, the first two authors of this paper, are NLP researchers. Judge M is an undergraduate computer science student, and judge D has no background in computer science or linguistics. Judge J, with help from M, developed the original coding instructions, and Judge J directed the process in step 4.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The analysis performed in step 3 reveals strong evidence of relative bias among the judges. Each pairwise comparison of judges also shows a strong pattern of symmetric disagreement. The two-category latent class model produces the most consistent clusters across the data configurations. It, therefore, is used to define the bias-corrected tags.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In step 4, judge B was excluded from the interactive discussion for logistical reasons. Discussion is apparently important, because, although B's Kappa values for the first study are on par with the others, B's Kappa values for agreement with the other judges change very little from the first to the second study (this is true across the range of certainty values). In contrast, agreement among the other judges noticeably improves. Because judge B's poor Performance in the second tagging experiment is linked to a difference in procedure, judge B's Table 2 : Palrwise Kappa (a) Scores tags are excluded from our subsequent analysis of the data gathered during the second tagging experiment. Table 2 shows the changes, from study 1 to study 2, in the Kappa values for pairwise agreement among the judges. The best results are clearly for the two who are not authors of this paper (D and M). The Kappa value for the agreement between D and M considering all certainty ratings reaches .76, which allows tentative conclusions on Krippendorf's scale (1980) . If we exclude the sentences with certainty rating 0, the Kappa values for pairwise agreement between M and D and between J and M are both over .8, which allows definite conclusions on Krippendorf's scale. Finally, if we only consider sentences with certainty 2 or 3, the pairwise agreements among M, D, and J all have high Kappa values, 0.87 and over.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1028,
"end": 1054,
"text": "Krippendorf's scale (1980)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 552,
"end": 559,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 694,
"end": 701,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We are aware of only one previous project reporting intercoder agreement results for similar categories, the switchboard-DAMSL project mentioned above. While their Kappa results are very good for other tags, the opinion-statement tagging was not very successful: \"The distinction was very hard to make by labelers, and Table 3 : Tests for Patterns of Agreement accounted for a large proportion of our interlabeler error\" (Jurafsky et al., 1997) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 421,
"end": 444,
"text": "(Jurafsky et al., 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 319,
"end": 326,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In step 6, as in step 3, there is strong evidence of relative bias among judges D, J and M. Each pairwise comparison of judges also shows a strong pattern of symmetric disagreement. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3 . 3 Also as in step 3, the two-category latent class model produces the most consistent clusters across the data configurations. Thus, it is used to define the bias-corrected tags for the second data set as well.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 228,
"end": 236,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Recently, there have been many successful applications of machine learning to discourse processing, such as (Litman, 1996; Samuel et al., 1998) . In this section, we report the results of machine learning experiments, in which we develop probablistic classifiers to automatically perform the subjective and objective classification. In the method we use for developing classifters (Bruce and Wiebe, 1999) , a search is performed to find a probability model that captures important interdependencies among features. Because features can be dropped and added during search, the method also performs feature selection.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 122,
"text": "(Litman, 1996;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 143,
"text": "Samuel et al., 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 404,
"text": "(Bruce and Wiebe, 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Machine Learning Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "In these experiments, the system considers naive Bayes, full independence, full interdependence, and models generated from those using forward and backward search. The model selected is the one with the highest accuracy on a held-out portion of the training data.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Machine Learning Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "10-fold cross validation is performed. The data is partitioned randomly into 10 different SFor the analysis in Table 3 , certainty ratings 0 and 1, and 2 and 3 are combined. Similar results are obtained when all ratings are treated as distinct. sets. On each fold, one set is used for testing, and the other nine are used for training. Feature selection, model selection, and parameter estimation are performed anew on each fold.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 118,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Machine Learning Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "The following are the potential features considered on each fold. A binary feature is included for each of the following: the presence in the sentence of a pronoun, an adjective, a cardinal number, a modal other than will, and an adverb other than not. We also include a binary feature representing whether or not the sentence begins a new paragraph. Finally, a feature is included representing co-occurrence of word tokens and punctuation marks with the subjective and objective classification. 4 There are many other features to investigate in future work, such as features based on tags assigned to previous utterances (see, e.g., (Wiebe et al., 1997; Samuel et al., 1998) ), and features based on semantic classes, such as positive and negative polarity adjectives (Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown, 1997) and reporting verbs (Bergler, 1992) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 634,
"end": 654,
"text": "(Wiebe et al., 1997;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 655,
"end": 675,
"text": "Samuel et al., 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 769,
"end": 805,
"text": "(Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 826,
"end": 841,
"text": "(Bergler, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Machine Learning Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "The data consists of the concatenation of the two corpora annotated with bias-corrected tags as described above. The baseline accuracy, i.e., the frequency of the more frequent class, is only",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Machine Learning Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "The results of the experiments are very promising. The average accuracy across all folds is 72.17%, more than 20 percentage points higher than the baseline accuracy. Interestingly, the system performs better on the sentences for which the judges are certain. In a post hoc analysis, we consider the sentences from the second data set for which judges M, J, and D rate their certainty as 2 or 3. There are 299/500 such sentences. For each fold, we calculate the system's accuracy on the subset of the test set consisting of such sentences. The average accuracy of the subsets across folds is 81.5%.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "51%.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Taking human performance as an upper bound, the system has room for improvement. The average pairwise percentage agreement between D, J, and M and the bias-corrected tags in the entire data set is 89.5%, while the system's percentage agreement with the bias-corrected tags (i.e., its accuracy) is 72.17%.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "51%.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "aThe per-class enumerated feature representation from (Wiebe et ai., 1998) is used, with 60% as the conditional independence cutoff threshold.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 74,
"text": "(Wiebe et ai., 1998)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "51%.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This paper demonstrates a procedure for automatically formulating a single best tag when there are multiple judges who disagree. The procedure is applicable to any tagging task in which the judges exhibit symmetric disagreement resulting from bias. We successfully use bias-corrected tags for two purposes: to guide a revision of the coding manual, and to develop an automatic classifier. The revision of the coding manual results in as much as a 16 point improvement in pairwise Kappa values, and raises the average agreement among the judges to a Kappa value of over 0.87 for the sentences that can be tagged with certainty.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Using only simple features, the classifier achieves an average accuracy 21 percentage points higher than the baseline, in 10-fold cross validation experiments. In addition, the average accuracy of the classifier is 81.5% on the sentences the judges tagged with certainty. The strong performance of the classifier and its consistency with the judges demonstrate the value of this approach to developing gold-standard tags.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "This research was supported in part by the Office of Naval Research under grant number N00014-95-1-0776. We are grateful to Matthew T. Bell and Richard A. Wiebe for participating in the annotation study, and to the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgements",
"sec_num": "7"
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "An Environment for Graphical Models",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Badsberg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Badsberg. 1995. An Environment for Graph- ical Models. Ph.D. thesis, Aalborg University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Interaction Process Analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"F"
],
"last": "Bales",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1950,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. F. Bales. 1950. Interaction Process Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. Routledge & Kegan Paul",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ann",
"middle": [],
"last": "Banfield",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ann Banfield. 1982. Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Lan- guage of Fiction. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Evidential Analysis o.f Reported Speech",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bergler",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Bergler. 1992. Evidential Analysis o.f Re- ported Speech. Ph.D. thesis, Brandeis Univer- sity.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bishop",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fienberg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Holland",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1975,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Bishop, S. Fienberg, and P. Holland. 1975. Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice. The MIT Press, Cambridge.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Word sense distinguishability and inter-coder agreement",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bruce",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proc. 3rd Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-98)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "53--60",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Bruce and J. Wiebe. 1998. Word sense dis- tinguishability and inter-coder agreement. In Proc. 3rd Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP- 98), pages 53-60, Granada, Spain, June. ACL SIGDAT.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Decomposable modeling in natural language processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bruce",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Bruce and J. Wiebe. 1999. Decompos- able modeling in natural language processing. Computational Linguistics, 25(2).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Recognizing subjectivity: A case study of manual tagging",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bruce",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Natural Language Engineering",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Bruce and J. Wiebe. to appear. Recognizing subjectivity: A case study of manual tagging. Natural Language Engineering.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carletta",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "22",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "249--254",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Carletta. 1996. Assessing agreement on clas- sification tasks: The kappa statistic. Compu- tational Linguistics, 22(2):249-254.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chafe",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "261--272",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "W. Chafe. 1986. Evidentiality in English con- versation and academic writing. In Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols, editors, Eviden- tiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemol- ogy, pages 261-272. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Bayesian classification (AutoClass): Theory and results",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cheeseman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stutz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "P. Cheeseman and J. Stutz. 1996. Bayesian classification (AutoClass): Theory and re- sults. In Fayyad, Piatetsky-Shapiro, Smyth, and Uthurusamy, editors, Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Meas",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cohen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1960,
"venue": "",
"volume": "20",
"issue": "",
"pages": "37--46",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Cohen. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychologi- cal Meas., 20:37-46.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Maximum likelihood estimation of observer error-rates using the EM algorithm",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"P"
],
"last": "Dawid",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Skene",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1979,
"venue": "Applied Statistics",
"volume": "28",
"issue": "",
"pages": "20--28",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "A. P. Dawid and A. M. Skene. 1979. Maximum likelihood estimation of observer error-rates using the EM algorithm. Applied Statistics, 28:20-28.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dempster",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Laird",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rubin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1977,
"venue": "Journal of the Royal Statistical Society",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--38",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "A. Dempster, N. Laird, and D. Rubin. 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 39 (Series B):1-38.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dunning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "19",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "75--102",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T. Dunning. 1993. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Com- putational Linguistics, 19(1):75-102.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Exploratory latent structure analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models",
"authors": [
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Goodman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1974,
"venue": "Biometrika",
"volume": "61",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "215--231",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "L. Goodman. 1974. Exploratory latent struc- ture analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika, 61:2:215- 231.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Predicting the semantic orientation of adjectives",
"authors": [
{
"first": "V",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hatzivassiloglou",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mckeown",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "ACL-EACL 1997",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "174--181",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "V. Hatzivassiloglou and K. McKeown. 1997. Predicting the semantic orientation of adjec- tives. In ACL-EACL 1997, pages 174-181, Madrid, Spain, July.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Generating Natural Language under Pragmatic Constraints",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Eduard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hovy",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Eduard Hovy. 1987. Generating Natural Lan- guage under Pragmatic Constraints. Ph.D. thesis, Yale University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Switchboard SWBD-DAMSL shallowdiscourse-function annotation coders manual, draft 13",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jurafsky",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shriberg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Biasca",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. Jurafsky, E. Shriberg, and D. Biasca. 1997. Switchboard SWBD-DAMSL shallow- discourse-function annotation coders manual, draft 13. Technical Report 97-01, University of Colorado Institute of Cognitive Science.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Linear segmentation and segment significance",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M.-Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Klavans",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Mckeown",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proc. 6th Workshop on Very Large Corpora (WVLC-98)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "197--205",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M.-Y. Kan, J. L. Klavans, and K. R. McKe- own. 1998. Linear segmentation and segment significance. In Proc. 6th Workshop on Very Large Corpora (WVLC-98), pages 197-205, Montreal, Canada, August. ACL SIGDAT.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Krippendorf",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1980,
"venue": "Sage Publications",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Krippendorf. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Sage Publi- cations, Beverly Hills.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Latent structure analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lazarsfeld",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1966,
"venue": "Measurement and Prediction",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "P. Lazarsfeld. 1966. Latent structure analy- sis. In S. A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E. Such- man, P.Lazarfeld, S. Star, and J. Claussen, editors, Measurement and Prediction. Wiley, New York.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Cue phrase classification using machine learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Litman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research",
"volume": "5",
"issue": "",
"pages": "53--94",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. Litman. 1996. Cue phrase classification us- ing machine learning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 5:53-94.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Building a large annotated corpus of English: The penn treebank",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marcus",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Santorini",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marcinkiewicz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "19",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "313--330",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Marcus, Santorini, B., and M. Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The penn treebank. Computational Linguis- tics, 19(2):313-330.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Knowledge lean word-sense disambiguation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ted",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pedersen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rebecca",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bruce",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proc. of the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-98)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ted Pedersen and Rebecca Bruce. 1998. Knowledge lean word-sense disambiguation. In Proc. of the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-98), Madison, Wisconsin, July.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Quirk",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Greenbaum",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Leech",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Svartvik",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Gram- mar of the English Language. Longman, New York.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "Goodness-offit Statistics for Discrete Multivariate Data",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Read",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cressie",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T. Read and N. Cressie. 1988. Goodness-of- fit Statistics for Discrete Multivariate Data. Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, NY.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "Dialogue act tagging with transformation-based learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Samuel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carberry",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proc. COLING-ACL 1998",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1150--1156",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Samuel, S. Carberry, and K. Vijay- Shanker. 1998. Dialogue act tagging with transformation-based learning. In Proc. COLING-ACL 1998, pages 1150-1156, Mon- treal, Canada, August.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "Probabilistic event categorization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bruce",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Duan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Proc. Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP-97)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "163--170",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Wiebe, R. Bruce, and L. Duan. 1997. Probabilistic event categorization. In Proc. Recent Advances in Natural Language Pro- cessing (RANLP-97), pages 163-170, Tsigov Chark, Bulgaria, September.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF30": {
"ref_id": "b30",
"title": "Mapping collocational properties into machine learning features",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mckeever",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bruce",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proc. 6th Workshop on Very Large Corpora (WVLC-98)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "225--233",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wiebe, K. McKeever, and R. Bruce. 1998. Mapping collocational properties into ma- chine learning features. In Proc. 6th Work- shop on Very Large Corpora (WVLC-98), pages 225-233, Montreal, Canada, August. ACL SIGDAT.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF31": {
"ref_id": "b31",
"title": "preparation. Verb profiles for subjectivity judgments and text classification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klavans",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"Y"
],
"last": "Kan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Wiebe, J. Klavans, and M.Y. Kan. in prepa- ration. Verb profiles for subjectivity judg- ments and text classification.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF32": {
"ref_id": "b32",
"title": "Tracking point of view in narrative",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "20",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "233--287",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Wiebe. 1994. Tracking point of view in narrative. Computational Linguistics, 20(2):233-287.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"TABREF0": {
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Judge 2 = J</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>Sub j2,3</td><td colspan=\"2\">Subjoa Objoa</td><td>Obj2,3</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>Sub j2,3</td><td colspan=\"2\">rill = 158 n12 = 43</td><td colspan=\"2\">n13 = 15 n14 = 4</td><td>nl+ = 220</td></tr><tr><td>Judge 1</td><td>Subjoj</td><td>n21 =0</td><td>n22 =0</td><td>n23 =0</td><td>n24 =0</td><td>n2+ = 0</td></tr><tr><td>= D</td><td>Objo,1</td><td>n31 = 3</td><td>n32 = 2</td><td>n33 = 2</td><td>n34 = 0</td><td>n3+ = 7</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Obj2,3</td><td>n41 = 38</td><td>n42 --48</td><td>n43 = 49</td><td>n44 = 142</td><td>n4+ = 277</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"4\">n+z = 199 n+2 = 93 n+3 = 66 n+4 = 146</td><td>n++ = 504</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">Table 1: Four-Category Contingency</td><td/><td/></tr></table>",
"num": null,
"text": "",
"html": null,
"type_str": "table"
}
}
}
} |