Comments for Let x = x

Comment on Data Preprocessing – Lessons Learned by DrNI@AM

DrNI@AM — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 07:18:16 +0000

Congrats for finishing your thesis! And thanks for the advise in this post. It comes too late for me, hence I can confirm most of the points.

We tend to think of pre-processing tools perfect and readily available things… depending on the application, the errors in sentence splitting, tokenization, and tagging multiply. Fixing these things could fill a thesis of its own.

Comment on Geschlossene Räume by Linda @ make-your-deal

Linda @ make-your-deal — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:15:46 +0000

So eine Uhr will ich auch, wenn auch nur zur Unterhaltung, wenn ich mal was zu lachen brauche

Comment on Geschlossene Räume by M. Erp System

M. Erp System — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:54:22 +0000

Ich finde es auch sehr lustig. Allerdings würde ich eine Uhr mit so vielen Funktionen nicht alltäglich benutzen, sondern eben nur besispielsweise zum joggen.

Comment on Geschlossene Räume by Petra

Petra — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:23:51 +0000

Sehr gute Post!
Es ist schon lustig wie das GPS sich manchmal benihmt und sagt so verrückte Sache, dass man kann nur lachen und warten bis es nochaml ruhig wird.

Comment on Agreeing on the wrong things by A.S.

A.S. — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:04:52 +0000

This blog is quite new and I was not aware of any people actually reading it. How did you find it?

I was doing research on a very important — okay, actually, I just was googling my name.

Are there any follow-ups on the work described in that (btw. extremely interesting) paper?

There’s my work with Stefan Gries on Collostructional Analysis, and I believe he has actually done some more sophisticated work on dispersion. Stefanie Wulffs dissertation (that I quote in the paper) has since been published as “Rethinking Idiomaticity” with Continuum press. If you have any specific aspects that you’re interested it, feel free to email me.

Comment on Agreeing on the wrong things by Armin

Armin — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:32:40 +0000

Hi again,

Just another two quick questions:

1. This blog is quite new and I was not aware of any people actually reading it. How did you find it?

2. Are there any follow-ups on the work described in that (btw. extremely interesting) paper? There were a few other things that I found worth discussing but which, I suspect, have already been adressed in subsequent work.

Comment on Agreeing on the wrong things by Armin

Armin — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:41:30 +0000

Thanks for the clarification. I guess what made me stumble about this was that it didn’t become entirely clear to me what it is the article tries to show by calculating inter-annotator agreement at that point. Classifying different kinds of haben+zu+inf didn’t seem very central with respect to the argumentation since we knew from the beginning that the “Verpflichtung”-class was the one we were interested in. One could just as well have made a binary decision (“Verpflichtung” vs. not “Verpflichtung”), which is why readers may be led to assume the scheme to form some kind of natural one (whatever that might mean).

Comment on Agreeing on the wrong things by A.S.

A.S. — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:58:43 +0000

Hi,

The other problem is that I don’t see a reason to assume that a classification schmeme is “the right one” by showing high kappa values. In principle, it should be possible to develop any kind of scheme and achieve good agreement rates as long as the rater instructions are clear and adequately describe all classes.

Exactly. Kappa is being used here as a measure of interrater reliability, not as a measure of validity of the annotation scheme itself. In other words, a high kappa value indicates that the instructions are clear enough for different raters to achieve essentialy the same results when using the annotation scheme. Whether the categories in the scheme make sense is an entirely different matter.