Add 'brainsteam/content/replies/2022/11/23/1669233016.md'

2022-11-23 20:00:09 +00:00 · 2022-11-23 20:00:09 +00:00 · b0f9fd185f
parent 1b35699ec1
commit b0f9fd185f
1 changed files with 65 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/brainsteam/content/replies/2022/11/23/1669233016.md
+++ b/brainsteam/content/replies/2022/11/23/1669233016.md
@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+date: '2022-11-23T19:50:16'
+hypothesis-meta:
+  created: '2022-11-23T19:50:16.484020+00:00'
+  document:
+    title:
+    - 2210.07188.pdf
+  flagged: false
+  group: __world__
+  hidden: false
+  id: DXdcFmtoEe2_uNemAZII7w
+  links:
+    html: https://hypothes.is/a/DXdcFmtoEe2_uNemAZII7w
+    incontext: https://hyp.is/DXdcFmtoEe2_uNemAZII7w/arxiv.org/pdf/2210.07188.pdf
+    json: https://hypothes.is/api/annotations/DXdcFmtoEe2_uNemAZII7w
+  permissions:
+    admin:
+    - acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
+    delete:
+    - acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
+    read:
+    - group:__world__
+    update:
+    - acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
+  tags:
+  - coreference
+  - NLProc
+  - data-annotation
+  target:
+  - selector:
+    - end: 3539
+      start: 3191
+      type: TextPositionSelector
+    - exact: owever, these datasets vary widelyin their definitions of coreference
+        (expressed viaannotation guidelines), resulting in inconsistent an-notations
+        both within and across domains and lan-guages. For instance, as shown in Figure
+        1, whileARRAU (Uryupina et al., 2019) treats generic pro-nouns as non-referring,
+        OntoNotes chooses not tomark them at all
+      prefix: "larly for \u201Cwe\u201D.et al., 2016a). H"
+      suffix: .It is thus unclear which guidel
+      type: TextQuoteSelector
+    source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.07188.pdf
+  text: One of the big issues is that different co-reference datasets have significant
+    differences in annotation guidelines even within the coreference family of tasks
+    - I found this quite shocking as one might expect coreference to be fairly well
+    defined as a task.
+  updated: '2022-11-23T19:54:31.023210+00:00'
+  uri: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.07188.pdf
+  user: acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
+  user_info:
+    display_name: James Ravenscroft
+in-reply-to: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.07188.pdf
+tags:
+- coreference
+- NLProc
+- data-annotation
+- hypothesis
+type: reply
+url: /replies/2022/11/23/1669233016
+
+---
+
+
+
+ <blockquote>owever, these datasets vary widelyin their definitions of coreference (expressed viaannotation guidelines), resulting in inconsistent an-notations both within and across domains and lan-guages. For instance, as shown in Figure 1, whileARRAU (Uryupina et al., 2019) treats generic pro-nouns as non-referring, OntoNotes chooses not tomark them at all</blockquote>One of the big issues is that different co-reference datasets have significant differences in annotation guidelines even within the coreference family of tasks - I found this quite shocking as one might expect coreference to be fairly well defined as a task.