2015 IIAI 4th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics 2015
DOI: 10.1109/iiai-aai.2015.268
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Automatic Dictionary Extraction and Annotation Method Using Simulated Annealing for Detecting Human Values

Abstract: Abstract-This paper studies a method for identifying word unigrams and word bigrams that are associated with one or more human values such as freedom or innovation. The key idea is to deterministically associate values with word choices, thus permitting values reflected by sentences to be assigned using dictionary lookup. This approach works nearly as well on average as the most accurate existing methods, and at close to the best results that can be achieved by a second human annotator, but the principal contr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
(37 reference statements)
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The unbalanced nature of the dataset was also found in previous studies of human values analysis in text documents (e.g. (Ishita et al 2010;Takayama et al 2013;Takayama et al 2014)). Future work could expand the datasets for specific values by targeting specific types of applications.…”
Section: Limitations and Challenges Of The Dashboardsupporting
confidence: 58%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The unbalanced nature of the dataset was also found in previous studies of human values analysis in text documents (e.g. (Ishita et al 2010;Takayama et al 2013;Takayama et al 2014)). Future work could expand the datasets for specific values by targeting specific types of applications.…”
Section: Limitations and Challenges Of The Dashboardsupporting
confidence: 58%
“…This performance limitations also happened in prior studies on the detection of human values in text documents. These studies initially reported low performance (F1 score of 0.45 (Ishita et al 2010)), but a series of studies later in the following years (Takayama et al 2013;Takayama et al 2014;Takayama et al 2015) resulting in better performance (F1 score of 0.74 (Takayama et al 2016)). These recent works demonstrated that classifying human values is not a trivial task.…”
Section: Limitations and Challenges Of The Dashboardmentioning
confidence: 99%