Search (45 results, page 3 of 3)

0.0021899752 = product of:
  0.0065699257 = sum of:
    0.0065699257 = weight(_text_:a in 643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065699257 = score(doc=643,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 643, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=643)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper describes an original hybrid system that extracts multiword unit candidates from part-of-speech tagged corpora. While classical hybrid systems manually define local part-of-speech patterns that lead to the identification of well-known multiword units (mainly compound nouns), our solution automatically identifies relevant syntactical patterns from the corpus. Word statistics are then combined with the endogenously acquired linguistic information in order to extract the most relevant sequences of words. As a result, (1) human intervention is avoided providing total flexibility of use of the system and (2) different multiword units like phrasal verbs, adverbial locutions and prepositional locutions may be identified. The system has been tested on the Brown Corpus leading to encouraging results

Type

a

0.0021899752 = product of:
  0.0065699257 = sum of:
    0.0065699257 = weight(_text_:a in 667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065699257 = score(doc=667,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 667, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=667)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.0019158293 = product of:
  0.005747488 = sum of:
    0.005747488 = weight(_text_:a in 849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005747488 = score(doc=849,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 849, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=849)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

ChatGPT, a general-purpose conversation chatbot released on November 30, 2022, by OpenAI, is expected to impact every aspect of society. However, the potential impacts of this NLP tool on education remain unknown. Such impact can be enormous as the capacity of ChatGPT may drive changes to educational learning goals, learning activities, and assessment and evaluation practices. This study was conducted by piloting ChatGPT to write an academic paper, titled Artificial Intelligence for Education (see Appendix A). The piloting result suggests that ChatGPT is able to help researchers write a paper that is coherent, (partially) accurate, informative, and systematic. The writing is extremely efficient (2-3 hours) and involves very limited professional knowledge from the author. Drawing upon the user experience, I reflect on the potential impacts of ChatGPT, as well as similar AI tools, on education. The paper concludes by suggesting adjusting learning goals-students should be able to use AI tools to conduct subject-domain tasks and education should focus on improving students' creativity and critical thinking rather than general skills. To accomplish the learning goals, researchers should design AI-involved learning tasks to engage students in solving real-world problems. ChatGPT also raises concerns that students may outsource assessment tasks. This paper concludes that new formats of assessments are needed to focus on creativity and critical thinking that AI cannot substitute.

0.0018771215 = product of:
  0.0056313644 = sum of:
    0.0056313644 = weight(_text_:a in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0056313644 = score(doc=869,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) models by OpenAI have taken natural language processing (NLP) community by storm by introducing very powerful language models. These models can perform various NLP tasks like question answering, textual entailment, text summarisation etc. without any supervised training. These language models need very few to no examples to understand the tasks and perform equivalent or even better than the state-of-the-art models trained in supervised fashion. In this article we will cover the journey of these models and understand how they have evolved over a period of 2 years. 1. Discussion of GPT-1 paper (Improving Language Understanding by Generative Pre-training). 2. Discussion of GPT-2 paper (Language Models are unsupervised multitask learners) and its subsequent improvements over GPT-1. 3. Discussion of GPT-3 paper (Language models are few shot learners) and the improvements which have made it one of the most powerful models NLP has seen till date. This article assumes familiarity with the basics of NLP terminologies and transformer architecture.

Type

a

0.0017697671 = product of:
  0.0053093014 = sum of:
    0.0053093014 = weight(_text_:a in 1288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053093014 = score(doc=1288,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1288, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1288)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Interface designs for lexical databases in NLP have suffered from not following design principles developed in the information visualization research community. We present a design paradigm and show it can be used to generate visualizations which maximize the usability and utility ofWordNet. The techniques can be generally applied to other lexical databases used in NLP research.