MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316254469 · doi:10.5715/jnlp.17.2_51

A Written Child Corpus with Editing History Tags

2010· article· en· W2316254469 on OpenAlexaff
Ryo Nagata, Ayako Kawai, Koji Suda, Junichi Kakegawa, Koichiro Morihiro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Natural Language Processing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsIntecsea (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNatural language processingLinguisticsWorld Wide WebInformation retrievalHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

自然言語処理や言語学においてコーパスは重要な役割を果たすが,従来のコーパスは大人の文章を集めたコーパスが中心であり,子供の文章を集めたコーパスは非常に少ない.その理由として,子供のコーパスに特有の様々な難しさが挙げられる.そこで,本論文では,子供のコーパスを構築する際に生じる難しさを整理,分類し,効率良く子供のコーパスを構築する方法を提案する.また,提案方法で実際に構築した「こどもコーパス」についても述べる.提案方法により,81人分(39,269形態素)のコーパスを構築することができ,提案方法の有効性を確認した.この規模は,公開されている日本語書き言葉子供コーパスとしては最大規模である.また,規模に加えて,「こどもコーパス」は作文履歴がトレース可能であるという特徴も有する.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.010

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Natural Language ProcessingSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207