Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jialu Zhong

dblp:169/3319 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Information extraction and text analysis · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › data annotation
crowd labeling
0.212015
Estimation of Discourse Segmentation Labels from Crowd Data · EMNLP 2015
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
data annotation
0.212015
Estimation of Discourse Segmentation Labels from Crowd Data · EMNLP 2015
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
discourse analysis
0.212015
Estimation of Discourse Segmentation Labels from Crowd Data · EMNLP 2015
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › text segmentation
discourse segmentation
0.212015
Estimation of Discourse Segmentation Labels from Crowd Data · EMNLP 2015

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

probabilistic model · 0.2hidden markov model · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Estimation of Discourse Segmentation Labels from Crowd Data
abstract
For annotation tasks involving independent judgments, probabilistic models have been used to infer ground truth labels from data where a crowd of many annotators labels the same items.Such models have been shown to produce results superior to taking the majority vote, but have not been applied to sequential data.We present two methods to infer ground truth labels from sequential annotations where we assume judgments are not independent, based on the observation that an annotator's segments all tend to be several utterances long.The data consists of crowd labels for annotation of discourse segment boundaries.The new methods extend Hidden Markov Models to relax the independence assumption.The two methods are distinct, so positive labels proposed by both are taken to be ground truth.In addition, results of the models are checked using metrics that test whether an annotator's accuracy relative to a given model remains consistent across different conversations.
Ziheng Huang 0010, Jialu Zhong, Rebecca J. Passonneau
EMNLP2