MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2250959204 · doi:10.18653/v1/k15-2008

The CLaC Discourse Parser at CoNLL-2015

2015· preprint· en· W2250959204 on OpenAlexafffund
Majid Laali, Leila Kosseim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceParsingTask (project management)Natural language processingArtificial intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Test setProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes our submission (kosseim15) to the CoNLL-2015 shared task on shallow discourse parsing. We used the UIMA framework to develop our parser and used ClearTK to add machine learning functionality to the UIMA framework. Overall, our parser achieves a result of 17.3 F1 on the identification of discourse relations on the blind CoNLL-2015 test set, ranking in sixth place.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0070.009
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0730.098

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207