Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Computational Linguistics - 1996
DOI: 10.3115/992628.992709
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Message Understanding Conference-6

Abstract: We have recently completed the sixth in a series of "Message Understanding Conferences" which are designed to promote and evaluate research in information extraction. MUC-6 introduced several innovations over prior MUCs, most notably in the range of different tasks for which evaluations were conducted. We describe some of the motivations for the new format and briefly discuss some of the results of the evaluations.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
545
0
19

Year Published

2006
2006
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,012 publications
(564 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
545
0
19
Order By: Relevance
“…Rather, given a specific, particular, language (Portuguese), one of our goals was to measure, instead, how well language-dependent and language-independent methods fare. 6 The reasons to organize HAREM were thus manifold, ranging from practical opportunity to theoretical relevance: As to the former, there was a relatively large number of interested parties, which is a requirement for a successful event. In addition, in contradistinction to morphological analysis [5] where it was hard to establish a common set of agreed categories, because many choices of the participating systems were only motivated by the different behaviours of the parsers using them, NER in itself boasted of a number of almost direct applications, although they differed significantly in their requirements.…”
Section: Context and Motivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Rather, given a specific, particular, language (Portuguese), one of our goals was to measure, instead, how well language-dependent and language-independent methods fare. 6 The reasons to organize HAREM were thus manifold, ranging from practical opportunity to theoretical relevance: As to the former, there was a relatively large number of interested parties, which is a requirement for a successful event. In addition, in contradistinction to morphological analysis [5] where it was hard to establish a common set of agreed categories, because many choices of the participating systems were only motivated by the different behaviours of the parsers using them, NER in itself boasted of a number of almost direct applications, although they differed significantly in their requirements.…”
Section: Context and Motivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although this is a fairly standard model, already used for Portuguese in Morfolimpíadas [4,5], there are some interesting ways in which this evaluation contest differs from MUC [6] and other predecessors in the NE domain:…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The development of automatic coreference resolution systems began in earnest in 1996 in response to the MUC-6 competition organised by NRAD with the support of DARPA [7]. Since then, numerous coreference resolution systems have been developed, typically using machine learning, and exploiting supervised [8]; [9]; [10] and unsupervised (clustering) methods [11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The term 'named entity recognition (extraction)' was first mentioned in 1996 at the Sixth Message Understanding Conference (MUC-6) [4], however the field started much earlier. The vast majority of proposed approaches for NER fall in two categories: handmade rule-based systems and supervised learning-based systems.…”
Section: Named Entity Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%