Paper detail

Performance of Stanford and Minipar Parser on Biomedical Texts

In this paper, the performance of two dependency parsers, namely Stanford and Minipar, on biomedical texts has been reported. The performance of te parsers to assignm dependencies between two biomedical concepts that are already proved to be connected is not satisfying. Both Stanford and Minipar, being statistical parsers, fail to assign dependency relation between two connected concepts if they are distant by at least one clause. Minipar's performance, in terms of precision, recall and the F-score of the attachment score (e.g., correctly identified head in a dependency), to parse biomedical text is also measured taking the Stanford's as a gold standard. The results suggest that Minipar is not suitable yet to parse biomedical texts. In addition, a qualitative investigation reveals that the difference between working principles of the parsers also play a vital role for Minipar's degraded performance.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.