A posteriori agreement as a quality measure for readability prediction systems

All readability research is ultimately concerned with the research question whether it is possible for a prediction system to automatically determine the level of readability of an unseen text. A significant problem for such a system is that readability might depend in part on the reader. If different readers assess the readability of texts in fundamentally different ways, there is insufficient a priori agreement to justify the correctness of a readability prediction system based on the texts assessed by those readers. We built a data set of readability assessments by expert readers. We clustered the experts into groups with greater a priori agreement and then measured for each group whether classifiers trained only on data from this group exhibited a classification bias. As this was found to be the case, the classification mechanism cannot be unproblematically generalized to a different user group

Situation entity annotation

This paper presents an annotation scheme for a new semantic annotation task with relevance for analysis and computation at both the clause level and the discourse level. More specifically, we label the finite clauses of texts with the type of situation entity (e.g., eventualities, statements about kinds, or statements of belief) they introduce to the discourse, following and extending work by Smith (2003). We take a feature-driven approach to annotation, with the result that each clause is also annotated with fundamental aspectual class, whether the main NP referent is specific or generic, and whether the situation evoked is episodic or habitual. This annotation is performed (so far) on three sections of the MASC corpus, with each clause labeled by at least two annotators. In this paper we present the annotation scheme, statistics of the corpus in its current version, and analyses of both inter-annotator agreement and intra-annotator consistency

Inter-Coder Agreement for Computational Linguistics

This article is a survey of methods for measuring agreement among corpus annotators. It exposes the mathematics and underlying assumptions of agreement coefficients, covering Krippendorff's alpha as well as Scott's pi and Cohen's kappa; discusses the use of coefficients in several annotation tasks; and argues that weighted, alpha-like coefficients, traditionally less used than kappa-like measures in computational linguistics, may be more appropriate for many corpus annotation tasks—but that their use makes the interpretation of the value of the coefficient even harder. </jats:p

Szaknyelvi annotációk javításának statisztikai alapú támogatása

A radiológiai leletezés komoly feladat, melynek automatizálása nagy jelentőséggel bír. A leletek gépi értelmezéséhez tanítópéldákra van szükség, amelyeknek megfelelő minőségben kell előállnia. Jelen munkában egy olyan módszert mutatunk be, amellyel az annotáció konzisztenciájának javítása érdekében, az újbóli átnézést statisztikai módszerekkel támogattuk, az inkonzisztenciákra az annotációs rendszer felületén hívva fel a figyelmet. Módszerünk eredményességét valós eredményekkel támasztjuk alá, amelyek nem csak a konzisztenciára, hanem a gépi tanulás sikerére is nagy mértékben kihatnak

What Determines Inter-Coder Agreement in Manual Annotations? A Meta-Analytic Investigation

Recent discussions of annotator agreement have mostly centered around its calculation and interpretation, and the correct choice of indices. Although these discussions are important, they only consider the "back-end" of the story, namely, what to do once the data are collected. Just as important in our opinion is to know how agreement is reached in the first place and what factors influence coder agreement as part of the annotation process or setting, as this knowledge can provide concrete guidelines for the planning and set-up of annotation projects. To investigate whether there are factors that consistently impact annotator agreement we conducted a meta-analytic investigation of annotation studies reporting agreement percentages. Our meta-analysis synthesized factors reported in 96 annotation studies from three domains (word-sense disambiguation, prosodic transcriptions, and phonetic transcriptions) and was based on a total of 346 agreement indices. Our analysis identified seven factors that influence reported agreement values: annotation domain, number of categories in a coding scheme, number of annotators in a project, whether annotators received training, the intensity of annotator training, the annotation purpose, and the method used for the calculation of percentage agreements. Based on our results we develop practical recommendations for the assessment, interpretation, calculation, and reporting of coder agreement. We also briefly discuss theoretical implications for the concept of annotation quality