MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118871236 · doi:10.3115/1687878.1687889

Topological field parsing of German

2009· article· en· W2118871236 on OpenAlexafffund
Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, Gerald Penn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsParsingComputer scienceNatural language processingParser combinatorArtificial intelligenceBottom-up parsingTop-down parsingGermanSentenceField (mathematics)S-attributed grammarWord orderLinguisticsMathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Freer-word-order languages such as German exhibit linguistic phenomena that present unique challenges to traditional CFG parsing. Such phenomena produce discontinuous constituents, which are not naturally modelled by projective phrase structure trees. In this paper, we examine topological field parsing, a shallow form of parsing which identifies the major sections of a sentence in relation to the clausal main verb and the subordinating heads. We report the results of topological field parsing of German using the unlexicalized, latent variable-based Berkeley parser (Petrov et al., 2006) Without any language- or model-dependent adaptation, we achieve state-of-the-art results on the TüBa-D/Z corpus, and a modified NE-GRA corpus that has been automatically annotated with topological fields (Becker and Frank, 2002). We also perform a qualitative error analysis of the parser output, and discuss strategies to further improve the parsing results.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207