MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976965564 · doi:10.7202/1008337ar

A Cognitive Model of Chinese Word Segmentation for Machine Translation

2012· article· en· W1976965564 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wu Zhi

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachine translationComputer scienceNatural language processingText segmentationSentenceArtificial intelligenceWord (group theory)SegmentationBottleneckLanguage translationTranslation (biology)Perspective (graphical)Linguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Chinese language, unlike English, is written without marked word boundaries, and Chinese word segmentation is often referred to as the bottleneck for Chinese-English machine translation. The current word-segmentation systems in machine translation are either linguistically-oriented or statistically-oriented. Chinese, however, is a pragmatically-oriented language, which explains why the existing Chinese word segmentation systems in machine translation are not successful in dealing with the language. Based on a language investigation consisting of two surveys and eight interviews, and its findings concerning how Chinese people segment a Chinese sentence into words in their reading, we have developed a new word-segmentation model, aiming to address the word-segmentation problem in machine translation from a cognitive perspective.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeta Journal des traducteursSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207