2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-90165-7_6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Turkish Named-Entity Recognition

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
6
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Tür et al (2003) employed the last inflectional group in a statistical model that relies on maximum a posteriori estimation for Turkish. In another work, morphemes in a morphological analysis are used as features of a CRF model (Yeniterzi 2011). Şeker and Eryiğit (2012) also employed a CRF model with more extensive features and added gazetteers.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Tür et al (2003) employed the last inflectional group in a statistical model that relies on maximum a posteriori estimation for Turkish. In another work, morphemes in a morphological analysis are used as features of a CRF model (Yeniterzi 2011). Şeker and Eryiğit (2012) also employed a CRF model with more extensive features and added gazetteers.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One can argue that the literature already addressed this issue by proposing character-based embeddings in word representations (Lample et al 2016) and entities tagged at the character level (Kuru, Can and Yuret 2016). Moreover, it is possible to note that morphological tags have been employed in the past for the NER task (Tür, Hakkani-Tür and Oflazer 2003; Yeniterzi 2011). However, our work treats the morphological analysis in a number of different ways that can be applied to many MRLs and is the first to propose an embedding-based framework for representing the morphological analysis in the context of NER.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Однако качество решения задачи оказалось низким, F-мера 59.0 %. Гораздо лучше показали себя методы, основанные на правилах (rule-based) для турецких текстов, F-мера 88.71 % [23], русских, F-мера 86.1 % [19] и финских F-мера 86.82 % [24]. Для финского языка метод, основанный на правилах, даже превзошел популярную технологию BiLSTM-CRF, F-мера 84.59 %.…”
Section: классическая задача Nerunclassified
“…Metrics Following previous work on Turkish NER (Yeniterzi, 2011;Şeker and Eryigit, 2012), we report the CoNLL F-1 metric (Tjong Kim Sang, 2002) to assess our NER baselines. CoNLL F-1 counts a named entity as correct, only if it is an exact match of the corresponding entity in the ground truth.…”
Section: Datasetsmentioning
confidence: 99%