2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-6890-4_42
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Language Identification on Code-Mix Social Text

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Their work demonstrated that the SVM using word embedding obtained better results than Naïve Bayes and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) with an F1 score of 90.61%. Kalita and Saharia [21] applied linear kernel SVM with Ngram and dictionary features to identify Assamese-English code-mixed language. They obtained 89.51% accuracy in word-level identification.…”
Section: 1) Machine Learning Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Their work demonstrated that the SVM using word embedding obtained better results than Naïve Bayes and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) with an F1 score of 90.61%. Kalita and Saharia [21] applied linear kernel SVM with Ngram and dictionary features to identify Assamese-English code-mixed language. They obtained 89.51% accuracy in word-level identification.…”
Section: 1) Machine Learning Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We found two different N-gram techniques being applied from the selected studies: word or token N-gram and character N-gram. Word or token N-gram has been used by [21,46,62]. In terms of word-level code-mixed LID task, the character N-gram is more popular than the word N-gram, especially for identifying the language in code-mixed script [15,16,58].…”
Section: 1) N-grammentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations