2020
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-57811-4_40
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of Thai Sentence Boundary Detection Approaches Using Online Product Review Data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To handle excessively long comments, we performed sentence tokenization using a Conditional Random Field (CRF) model constructed from four distinct datasets established in our previous research work [48].…”
Section: A Benchmark Datasetsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To handle excessively long comments, we performed sentence tokenization using a Conditional Random Field (CRF) model constructed from four distinct datasets established in our previous research work [48].…”
Section: A Benchmark Datasetsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pree Thiengburanathum [35] compared two machine learning-based methods, namely CRF and BiLSTM-CRF, for sentence boundary detection in Thai sentences. In this study, a plain text corpus from Thai web forums consisting of online product review data was used.…”
Section: Background Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results indicated that the BiLSTM-CNN model with word, character, and POS features achieved the best performance with an F1-score of 81.34%. In contrast, the lowest F1-score of 2.16% was obtained using BiLSTM-CNN with only word and character features.However, in the study ofThiengburanathum (2021), the CRF model performed better than the BiLSTM-CRF model. In the study, CRF and BiLSTM-CRF were compared for Thai sentence segmentation on textual data related to beauty products.…”
mentioning
confidence: 90%