An analysis of disagreement-provoking factors in the analysis of epistemic modality and evidentiality: the case of English adverbials
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Investigating Disagreement in the Scientific Literature
Disagreement is essential to scientific progress. However, the extent of disagreement in science, its evolution over time, and the fields in which it happens, remains poorly understood. Leveraging a massive collection of…
Articlestext-classificationText ClassificationStructured Disagreement in Health-Literacy Annotation: Epistemic Stability, Conceptual Difficulty, and Agreement-Stratified Inference
Annotation pipelines in Natural Language Processing (NLP) commonly assume a single latent ground truth per instance and resolve disagreement through label aggregation. Perspectivist approaches challenge this view by trea…
Credal Concept Bottleneck Models for Epistemic-Aleatoric Uncertainty Decomposition
Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) predict through human-interpretable concepts, but they typically output point concept probabilities that conflate epistemic uncertainty (reducible model underspecification) with aleatoric…
Computing Conceptual Distances between Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines: An Implementation of a Near-Peer Epistemic Model of Medical Disagreement
Using natural language processing tools, we investigate the differences of recommendations in medical guidelines for the same decision problem -- breast cancer screening. We show that these differences arise from knowled…
It Takes Two to Tango: Navigating Conceptualizations of NLP Tasks and Measurements of Performance
Progress in NLP is increasingly measured through benchmarks; hence, contextualizing progress requires understanding when and why practitioners may disagree about the validity of benchmarks. We develop a taxonomy of disag…
coreference-resolutionCoreference ResolutionQuestion AnsweringSurvey