The Extraordinary Failure of Complement Coercion Crowdsourcing

Yanai Elazar, Victoria Basmov, Shauli Ravfogel, Yoav Goldberg, Reut Tsarfaty
{"title":"The Extraordinary Failure of Complement Coercion Crowdsourcing","authors":"Yanai Elazar, Victoria Basmov, Shauli Ravfogel, Yoav Goldberg, Reut Tsarfaty","doi":"10.18653/v1/2020.insights-1.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Crowdsourcing has eased and scaled up the collection of linguistic annotation in recent years. In this work, we follow known methodologies of collecting labeled data for the complement coercion phenomenon. These are constructions with an implied action — e.g., “I started a new book I bought last week”, where the implied action is reading. We aim to collect annotated data for this phenomenon by reducing it to either of two known tasks: Explicit Completion and Natural Language Inference. However, in both cases, crowdsourcing resulted in low agreement scores, even though we followed the same methodologies as in previous work. Why does the same process fail to yield high agreement scores? We specify our modeling schemes, highlight the differences with previous work and provide some insights about the task and possible explanations for the failure. We conclude that specific phenomena require tailored solutions, not only in specialized algorithms, but also in data collection methods.","PeriodicalId":441528,"journal":{"name":"First Workshop on Insights from Negative Results in NLP","volume":"90 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"First Workshop on Insights from Negative Results in NLP","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.insights-1.17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Crowdsourcing has eased and scaled up the collection of linguistic annotation in recent years. In this work, we follow known methodologies of collecting labeled data for the complement coercion phenomenon. These are constructions with an implied action — e.g., “I started a new book I bought last week”, where the implied action is reading. We aim to collect annotated data for this phenomenon by reducing it to either of two known tasks: Explicit Completion and Natural Language Inference. However, in both cases, crowdsourcing resulted in low agreement scores, even though we followed the same methodologies as in previous work. Why does the same process fail to yield high agreement scores? We specify our modeling schemes, highlight the differences with previous work and provide some insights about the task and possible explanations for the failure. We conclude that specific phenomena require tailored solutions, not only in specialized algorithms, but also in data collection methods.
互补强制众包的巨大失败
近年来,众包简化并扩大了语言注释的收集。在这项工作中,我们遵循已知的方法来收集补语强制现象的标记数据。这些都是带有暗示动作的结构,例如,“我开始看我上周买的一本新书”,暗示动作是阅读。我们的目标是通过将其简化为两个已知任务中的任何一个来收集这种现象的注释数据:显式完成和自然语言推理。然而,在这两种情况下,众包导致了较低的协议得分,即使我们遵循了与之前工作相同的方法。为什么同样的过程不能产生高的一致性分数?我们详细说明了我们的建模方案,强调了与以前工作的不同之处,并提供了一些关于任务和失败的可能解释的见解。我们的结论是,特定的现象需要量身定制的解决方案,不仅在专门的算法上,而且在数据收集方法上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信