Add 'brainsteam/content/replies/2022/11/23/1669233264.md'

brainsteam/content/replies/2022/11/23/1669233264.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+---
+date: '2022-11-23T19:54:24'
+hypothesis-meta:
+  created: '2022-11-23T19:54:24.332809+00:00'
+  document:
+    title:
+    - 2210.07188.pdf
+  flagged: false
+  group: __world__
+  hidden: false
+  id: oTGKsmtoEe2RF0-NK45jew
+  links:
+    html: https://hypothes.is/a/oTGKsmtoEe2RF0-NK45jew
+    incontext: https://hyp.is/oTGKsmtoEe2RF0-NK45jew/arxiv.org/pdf/2210.07188.pdf
+    json: https://hypothes.is/api/annotations/oTGKsmtoEe2RF0-NK45jew
+  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: 5934
+      start: 5221
+      type: TextPositionSelector
+    - exact: Specifically, our work investigates the quality ofcrowdsourced coreference
+        annotations when anno-tators are taught only simple coreference cases thatare
+        treated uniformly across existing datasets (e.g.,pronouns). By providing only
+        these simple cases,we are able to teach the annotators the concept ofcoreference,
+        while allowing them to freely interpretcases treated differently across the
+        existing datasets.This setup allows us to identify cases where ourannotators
+        disagree among each other, but moreimportantly cases where they unanimously
+        agreewith each other but disagree with the expert, thussuggesting cases that
+        should be revisited by theresearch community when curating future unifiedannotation
+        guidelines
+      prefix: ficient payment-based platforms.
+      suffix: .Our main contributions are:1. W
+      type: TextQuoteSelector
+    source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.07188.pdf
+  text: "The aim of the work is to examine a simplified subset of co-reference phenomena\
+    \ which are generally treated the same across different existing datasets. \n\n\
+    This makes spotting inter-annotator disagreement easier - presumably because for\
+    \ simpler cases there are fewer modes of failure?\n\n"
+  updated: '2022-11-23T19:54:24.332809+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/2022/11/23/1669233264
+
+---
+
+
+
+ <blockquote>Specifically, our work investigates the quality ofcrowdsourced coreference annotations when anno-tators are taught only simple coreference cases thatare treated uniformly across existing datasets (e.g.,pronouns). By providing only these simple cases,we are able to teach the annotators the concept ofcoreference, while allowing them to freely interpretcases treated differently across the existing datasets.This setup allows us to identify cases where ourannotators disagree among each other, but moreimportantly cases where they unanimously agreewith each other but disagree with the expert, thussuggesting cases that should be revisited by theresearch community when curating future unifiedannotation guidelines</blockquote>The aim of the work is to examine a simplified subset of co-reference phenomena which are generally treated the same across different existing datasets. 
+
+This makes spotting inter-annotator disagreement easier - presumably because for simpler cases there are fewer modes of failure?