| ====================================================================== |
| INTER-ANNOTATOR AGREEMENT SUMMARY REPORT |
| ====================================================================== |
|
|
| Dataset Information: |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Total Samples Evaluated: 2,000 triplets |
| Total Annotation Rows: 8,000 (2,000 × 4 annotators) |
| Annotators: 4 (BH1, BH2, HT1, HT2) |
| Rating Scale: 1-5 (Likert scale) |
| Evaluation Criteria: 4 dimensions |
|
|
|
|
| ====================================================================== |
| FLEISS' KAPPA (Inter-Annotator Agreement) |
| ====================================================================== |
|
|
| Translation Accuracy κ = 0.816 (Almost Perfect Agreement) |
| Semantic Equivalence κ = 0.812 (Almost Perfect Agreement) |
| Grammatical Correctness κ = 0.836 (Almost Perfect Agreement) |
| Literary Tone Preservation κ = 0.853 (Almost Perfect Agreement) |
| Overall (Mean) κ = 0.829 (Almost Perfect Agreement) |
|
|
| ====================================================================== |
| INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT (ICC) |
| ====================================================================== |
|
|
| Translation Accuracy ICC = 0.949 |
| Semantic Equivalence ICC = 0.948 |
| Grammatical Correctness ICC = 0.955 |
| Literary Tone Preservation ICC = 0.957 |
| Overall (Mean) ICC = 0.952 |
|
|
| ====================================================================== |
| COMPOSITE FLUENCY STATISTICS |
| ====================================================================== |
|
|
| Mean Composite Fluency: 4.13 ± 0.51 |
| Range: 2.48 to 5.00 |
| Average Std Deviation: 0.05 |
|
|
| Quality Distribution: |
| Excellent (≥4.5): 676 (33.8%) |
| Good (4.0-4.5): 674 (33.7%) |
| Acceptable (3.5-4.0): 458 (22.9%) |
| Borderline (<3.5): 192 (9.6%) |
|
|
| ====================================================================== |
| INTERPRETATION (Landis & Koch, 1977) |
| ====================================================================== |
|
|
| Kappa Interpretation Scale: |
| < 0.00: Poor agreement |
| 0.00-0.20: Slight agreement |
| 0.21-0.40: Fair agreement |
| 0.41-0.60: Moderate agreement |
| 0.61-0.80: Substantial agreement |
| 0.81-1.00: Almost perfect agreement ← BHT25 (κ = 0.829) |
|
|
|
|
| The corpus-wide weighted composite fluency was 4.13 ± 0.51." |
|
|
| ====================================================================== |
| KAPPA CALCULATION EXPLANATION |
| ====================================================================== |
|
|
| Fleiss' Kappa measures the degree of agreement among multiple raters |
| when assigning categorical ratings to a number of items. |
|
|
| Formula: κ = (P̄ - Pₑ) / (1 - Pₑ) |
|
|
| Where: |
| P̄ = Observed proportion of agreement among raters |
| Pₑ = Expected proportion of agreement by chance |
|
|
| For our dataset: |
| - 2,000 triplets rated by 4 annotators each |
| - 5-point Likert scale (ratings 1-5) |
| - κ = 0.83 means annotators agreed 83% more often than expected by chance |
|
|
| Example: |
| If all 4 annotators give rating '5': Perfect agreement (P = 1.0) |
| If ratings are 5, 5, 5, 4: High agreement (P ≈ 0.75) |
| If ratings are 5, 4, 3, 2: Low agreement (P ≈ 0.0) |
|
|
| The achieved κ = 0.829 falls in the 'Almost Perfect Agreement' category. |
|
|
