1 / 29

Keyword extraction for metadata annotation of Learning Objects

Keyword extraction for metadata annotation of Learning Objects. Lothar Lemnitzer, Paola Monachesi RANLP, Borovets 2007. Outline. A quantitative view on the corpora The keyword extractor Evaluation of the KWE. Creation of a learning objects archive.

kylie-morrison
Télécharger la présentation

Keyword extraction for metadata annotation of Learning Objects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Keyword extraction for metadata annotation of Learning Objects Lothar Lemnitzer, Paola Monachesi RANLP, Borovets 2007

  2. Outline • A quantitative view on the corpora • The keyword extractor • Evaluation of the KWE

  3. Creation of a learning objects archive • Collection of the learning material IST domains for the LOs: 1. Use of computers in education, with sub-domains: 2. Calimera documents (parallel corpus developed in the Calimera FP5 project, http://www.calimera.org/ ) • Result: a multilingual, partially parallel, partially comparable, domain specific corpus

  4. Corpus statistics – full corpus • Measuring lengths of corpora (# of documents, tokens) • Measuring token / tpye ratio • Measuring type / lemma ratio

  5. Corpus statistics – full corpus • Bulgarian, German and Polish corpora have a very low number of tokens per type (probably problems with sparseness) • English has by far the highest ratio • Czech, Dutch, Portuguese and Romanian are in between • type / lemma ration reflects richness of inflectional paradigms

  6. Reflection • The corpora are heterogeneous wrt to the type / token ratio • Does the data sparseness of some corpora, compared to others, influence the information extraction process? • If yes, how can we counter this effect? • How does the quality of the linguistic annotation influence the extraction task?

  7. Corpus statistics – annotated subcorpus • Measuring lenghts of annotated documents • Measuring distribution of manually marked keywords over documents • Measuring the share of keyphrases

  8. Keyphrases

  9. Reflection • Did the human annotators annotate keywords of domain terms? • Was the task adequately contextualised? • What do the varying shares of keyphrases tell us?

  10. Keyword extraction • Good keywords have a typical, non random distribution in and across documents • Keywords tend to appear more often at certain places in texts (headings etc.) • Keywords are often highlighted / emphasised by authors • Keywords express / represent the topic(s) of a text

  11. Modelling Keywordiness • Linguistic filtering of KW candidates, based on part of speech and morphology • Distributional measures are used to identify unevenly distributed words • TFIDF • (Adjusted) RIDF • Knowledge of text structure used to identify salient regions (e.g., headings) • Layout features of texts used to identify emphasised words and weight them higher • Finding chains of semantically related words

  12. Challenges • Treating multi word keywords (= keyphrases) • Assigning a combined weight which takes into account all the aforementioned factors • Multilinguality: finding good settings for all languages, balancing language dependent and language independent features

  13. Treatment of keyphrases • Keyphrases have to be restricted wrt to length (max 3 words) and frequency (min 2 occurrences) • Keyphrase patterns must be restricted wrt to linguistic categories (style of learningis acceptable; of learning stylesis not)

  14. KWE Evaluation 1 • Human annotators marked n keywords in document d • First n choices of KWE for document d extracted • Measure overlap between both sets • measure also partial matches

  15. KWE Evaluation – Overlap Settings • All three statistics have been tested • Maximal keyphrase length set to 3

  16. Reflection • Is it correct to use the human annotation as „gold standard“ • Is it correct to give a weight to partial matches?

  17. KWE Evaluation - IAA • Participants read text (Calimera „Multimedia“) • Participants assign keywords to that text (ideally not more than 15) • KWE produces keywords for text • IAA is measured over human annotators • IAA is measured for KWE / human ann.

  18. KWE Evaluation – Judging adequacy • Participants read text (Calimera „Multimedia“) • Participants see 20 KW generated by the KWE and rate them • Scale 1 – 4 (excellent – not acceptable) • 5 = not sure

  19. Reflection • How should we treat the „not sure“ decisions (quite substantial for a few judges) • What do the added keywords tell us? Where are they in the ordered list of recommendations?

  20. Conclusions • Evaluation of a KWE in a multilingual environment and with diverse corpora is more difficult than expected beforehand • Now we have the facilities for a controlled development / improvement of KWE • Quantitative evaluation has to be accompanied by validation of the tool

More Related