Changeset - 12c3faed77f6
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Arjen de Vries (arjen) - 11 years ago 2014-06-12 04:01:07
arjen.de.vries@cwi.nl
minor - remove table ref not necessary
1 file changed with 2 insertions and 2 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
mypaper-final.tex
Show inline comments
 
@@ -567,50 +567,50 @@ If we look at the recall performances for the raw corpus,   filtering documents
 
\multirow{4}{*}{Vital} &cano                 &82.2& 65.6& 70.9& 90.9&  80.1& 76.8&   8.1&  6.3&  30.5\\
 
&cano part & 90.4& 80.6& 83.1& 100.0& 98.7& 90.9&   8.1&  6.3&  30.5\\
 
&all  & 94.8& 85.4& 83.1& 96.4&  95.9& 85.2&   81.1& 42.2& 68.8\\
 
&all part &100& 99.2& 95.9& 100.0&  99.2& 96.0&   100&  99.3& 94.9\\
 
\hline
 
	                 
 
\multirow{4}{*}{Relevant} &cano & 84.2& 53.4& 55.6& 88.4& 75.6& 63.2& 10.6& 2.2& 6.0\\
 
&cano part &94.7& 68.5& 67.8& 99.6& 97.3& 77.3& 10.6& 2.2& 6.0\\
 
&all & 95.8& 90.1& 72.9& 97.6& 95.1& 73.1& 65.2& 78.4& 72.0\\
 
&all part &98.8& 95.5& 83.7& 99.7& 98.0& 84.1& 83.3& 89.7& 81.0\\
 
	                 
 
	                 \hline
 
\multirow{4}{*}{total} 	&cano    &   81.1& 56.5& 58.2& 87.7& 76.4& 65.7& 9.8& 3.6& 13.5\\
 
&cano part &92.0& 72.0& 70.6& 99.6& 97.7& 80.1& 9.8& 3.6& 13.5\\
 
&all & 94.8& 87.1& 75.2& 96.8& 95.3& 75.8& 73.5& 65.4& 71.1\\
 
&all part & 99.2& 96.8& 86.6& 99.8& 98.4& 86.8& 92.4& 92.7& 84.9\\
 
	                 
 
\hline
 
\end{tabular}
 
\end{center}
 
\label{tab:source-delta}
 
\end{table*}
 
    
 
 
The break down of the raw corpus by document source category is presented in Table
 
\ref{tab:source-delta}.  
 
%The break down of the raw corpus by document source category is presented in Table
 
%\ref{tab:source-delta}.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \subsection{ Relevance Rating: vital and relevant}
 
 
 
When comparing recall for vital and relevant, we observe that
 
canonical names are more effective for vital than for relevant
 
entities, in particular for the Wikipedia entities. 
 
%For example, the recall for news is 80.1 and for social is 76, while the corresponding recall in relevant is 75.6 and 63.2 respectively.
 
We conclude that the most relevant documents mention the
 
entities by their common name variants.
 
%  \subsection{Difference by document categories}
 
%  
 
 
 
%  Generally, there is greater variation in relevant rank than in vital. This is specially true in most of the Delta's for Wikipedia. This  maybe be explained by news items referring to  vital documents by a some standard name than documents that are relevant. Twitter entities show greater deltas than Wikipedia entities in both vital and relevant. The greater variation can be explained by the fact that the canonical name of Twitter entities retrieves very few documents. The deltas that involve canonical names of Twitter entities, thus, show greater deltas.  
 
%  
 
 
% If we look in recall performances, In Wikipedia entities, the order seems to be others, news and social. This means that others achieve a higher recall than news than social.  However, in Twitter entities, it does not show such a strict pattern. In all, entities also, we also see almost the same pattern of other, news and social. 
 
 
 
 
  
 
\subsection{Recall across document categories: others, news and social}
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)