2 ms·

It seems to be quite opinionated https://concept.research.microsoft.com/Home/Demo?instance=hillary&smooth=0.01 https://concept.research.microsoft.com/Home/Demo

It seems to be quite opinionated https://concept.research.microsoft.com/Home/Demo?instance=hillary&smooth=0.01 https://concept.research.microsoft.com/Home/Demo?instance=hi... it would be interesting to know more about how the graph is formed, and how it avoids "gaming" the engine the probase link is giving be a 400 error

Mathnerd314 10y ago
My guess is it only parses certain word forms. "Blatant state-shtuppers" is in this blog post: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=63723 http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=63723 > "Let’s put blatant State-shtuppers such as Hillary, Bernie, and Obama at about 7 or an 8." This matches Hearst Pattern #1 from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/paper.pdf https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...: > NP such as {NP,}*{(or, and)} NP Hillary usually appears by herself, rather than in a list. Apparently Probase doesn't pick up the plentiful "X is a Y" associations, e.g. the "Hillary is a liar" from http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/27/poll-voters-overwhelmingly-say-hillary-is-a-dishonest-liar/ http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/27/poll-voters-overwhelming... or "Hillary is a candidate" from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-c... Or maybe it does, and they're ranked down. They do have a truth-detection phase, but it's mostly syntactic, and the top categories all have negative examples ("Hillary is not a candidate", "Hillary is not a democrat", etc.).
jerad 10y ago
Wow, those are rather interesting "concepts". It's surprising most of the top results are all totally subjective (and yes highly opinionated): 'unrepentant liar', 'gas bag', 'ruthless and totally corrupt politician'... Clearly those associated concepts didn't come from the nytimes or wikipedia, so how can they ensure accuracy when scraping these unauthoritative sources?

Mathnerd314 10y ago

My guess is it only parses certain word forms. "Blatant state-shtuppers" is in this blog post: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=63723 http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=63723 > "Let’s put blatant State-shtuppers such as Hillary, Bernie, and Obama at about 7 or an 8." This matches Hearst Pattern #1 from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/paper.pdf https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...: > NP such as {NP,}*{(or, and)} NP Hillary usually appears by herself, rather than in a list. Apparently Probase doesn't pick up the plentiful "X is a Y" associations, e.g. the "Hillary is a liar" from http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/27/poll-voters-overwhelmingly-say-hillary-is-a-dishonest-liar/ http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/27/poll-voters-overwhelming... or "Hillary is a candidate" from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-c... Or maybe it does, and they're ranked down. They do have a truth-detection phase, but it's mostly syntactic, and the top categories all have negative examples ("Hillary is not a candidate", "Hillary is not a democrat", etc.).

jerad 10y ago

Wow, those are rather interesting "concepts". It's surprising most of the top results are all totally subjective (and yes highly opinionated): 'unrepentant liar', 'gas bag', 'ruthless and totally corrupt politician'... Clearly those associated concepts didn't come from the nytimes or wikipedia, so how can they ensure accuracy when scraping these unauthoritative sources?