MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806065745 · doi:10.63317/56fzpsjj9h76

Developing the Bangla RST Discourse Treebank

2018· article· en· W2806065745 on OpenAlexaff
Debopam Das, Manfred Stede

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreebankBengaliComputer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsParsing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a corpus development project which builds a corpus in Bangla called the Bangla RST Discourse Treebank.The corpus contains a collection of 266 Bangla text, which are annotated for coherence relations (relations between propositions, such as Cause or Evidence).The texts represent the newspaper genre, which is further divided into eight sub-genres, such as business-related news, editorial columns and sport reports.We use Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann and Thompson, 1988) as the theoretical framework of the corpus.In particular, we develop our annotation guidelines based on the guidelines used in the Potsdam Commentary Corpus (Stede, 2016).In the initial phase of the corpus development process, we have annotated 16 texts, and also conducted an inter-annotator agreement study, evaluating the reliability of our guidelines and the reproducibility of our annotation.The corpus upon its completion could be used as a valuable resource for conducting (cross-linguistic) discourse studies for Bangla, and also for developing various NLP applications, such as text summarization, machine translation or sentiment analysis.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.022

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207