Concordance

Query E06-1035 20 (932.4 per million)

other,11-1-E06-1035,bq	In this paper , we investigate the problem of automatically predicting <term> segment boundaries </term> in <term> spoken multiparty dialogue </term> .	#10473 In this paper, we investigate the problem of automatically predictingsegment boundaries in spoken multiparty dialogue.
other,14-1-E06-1035,bq	In this paper , we investigate the problem of automatically predicting <term> segment boundaries </term> in <term> spoken multiparty dialogue </term> .	#10476 In this paper, we investigate the problem of automatically predicting segment boundaries inspoken multiparty dialogue.
other,9-3-E06-1035,bq	We first apply approaches that have been proposed for <term> predicting top-level topic shifts </term> to the problem of <term> identifying subtopic boundaries </term> .	#10497 We first apply approaches that have been proposed forpredicting top-level topic shifts to the problem of identifying subtopic boundaries.
other,17-3-E06-1035,bq	We first apply approaches that have been proposed for <term> predicting top-level topic shifts </term> to the problem of <term> identifying subtopic boundaries </term> .	#10505 We first apply approaches that have been proposed for predicting top-level topic shifts to the problem ofidentifying subtopic boundaries.
measure(ment),6-4-E06-1035,bq	We then explore the impact on <term> performance </term> of using <term> ASR output </term> as opposed to <term> human transcription </term> .	#10515 We then explore the impact onperformance of using ASR output as opposed to human transcription.
other,9-4-E06-1035,bq	We then explore the impact on <term> performance </term> of using <term> ASR output </term> as opposed to <term> human transcription </term> .	#10518 We then explore the impact on performance of usingASR output as opposed to human transcription.
other,14-4-E06-1035,bq	We then explore the impact on <term> performance </term> of using <term> ASR output </term> as opposed to <term> human transcription </term> .	#10523 We then explore the impact on performance of using ASR output as opposed tohuman transcription.
other,5-5-E06-1035,bq	Examination of the effect of <term> features </term> shows that <term> predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries </term> are two distinct tasks : ( 1 ) for predicting <term> subtopic boundaries </term> , the <term> lexical cohesion-based approach </term> alone can achieve competitive results , ( 2 ) for <term> predicting top-level boundaries </term> , the <term> machine learning approach </term> that combines <term> lexical-cohesion and conversational features </term> performs best , and ( 3 ) <term> conversational cues </term> , such as <term> cue phrases </term> and <term> overlapping speech </term> , are better indicators for the top-level prediction task .	#10531 Examination of the effect offeatures shows that predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries are two distinct tasks: (1) for predicting subtopic boundaries, the lexical cohesion-based approach alone can achieve competitive results, (2) for predicting top-level boundaries, the machine learning approach that combines lexical-cohesion and conversational features performs best, and (3) conversational cues, such as cue phrases and overlapping speech, are better indicators for the top-level prediction task.
other,8-5-E06-1035,bq	Examination of the effect of <term> features </term> shows that <term> predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries </term> are two distinct tasks : ( 1 ) for predicting <term> subtopic boundaries </term> , the <term> lexical cohesion-based approach </term> alone can achieve competitive results , ( 2 ) for <term> predicting top-level boundaries </term> , the <term> machine learning approach </term> that combines <term> lexical-cohesion and conversational features </term> performs best , and ( 3 ) <term> conversational cues </term> , such as <term> cue phrases </term> and <term> overlapping speech </term> , are better indicators for the top-level prediction task .	#10534 Examination of the effect of features shows thatpredicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries are two distinct tasks: (1) for predicting subtopic boundaries, the lexical cohesion-based approach alone can achieve competitive results, (2) for predicting top-level boundaries, the machine learning approach that combines lexical-cohesion and conversational features performs best, and (3) conversational cues, such as cue phrases and overlapping speech, are better indicators for the top-level prediction task.
other,24-5-E06-1035,bq	Examination of the effect of <term> features </term> shows that <term> predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries </term> are two distinct tasks : ( 1 ) for predicting <term> subtopic boundaries </term> , the <term> lexical cohesion-based approach </term> alone can achieve competitive results , ( 2 ) for <term> predicting top-level boundaries </term> , the <term> machine learning approach </term> that combines <term> lexical-cohesion and conversational features </term> performs best , and ( 3 ) <term> conversational cues </term> , such as <term> cue phrases </term> and <term> overlapping speech </term> , are better indicators for the top-level prediction task .	#10550 Examination of the effect of features shows that predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries are two distinct tasks: (1) for predictingsubtopic boundaries, the lexical cohesion-based approach alone can achieve competitive results, (2) for predicting top-level boundaries, the machine learning approach that combines lexical-cohesion and conversational features performs best, and (3) conversational cues, such as cue phrases and overlapping speech, are better indicators for the top-level prediction task.
tech,28-5-E06-1035,bq	Examination of the effect of <term> features </term> shows that <term> predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries </term> are two distinct tasks : ( 1 ) for predicting <term> subtopic boundaries </term> , the <term> lexical cohesion-based approach </term> alone can achieve competitive results , ( 2 ) for <term> predicting top-level boundaries </term> , the <term> machine learning approach </term> that combines <term> lexical-cohesion and conversational features </term> performs best , and ( 3 ) <term> conversational cues </term> , such as <term> cue phrases </term> and <term> overlapping speech </term> , are better indicators for the top-level prediction task .	#10554 Examination of the effect of features shows that predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries are two distinct tasks: (1) for predicting subtopic boundaries, thelexical cohesion-based approach alone can achieve competitive results, (2) for predicting top-level boundaries, the machine learning approach that combines lexical-cohesion and conversational features performs best, and (3) conversational cues, such as cue phrases and overlapping speech, are better indicators for the top-level prediction task.
other,41-5-E06-1035,bq	Examination of the effect of <term> features </term> shows that <term> predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries </term> are two distinct tasks : ( 1 ) for predicting <term> subtopic boundaries </term> , the <term> lexical cohesion-based approach </term> alone can achieve competitive results , ( 2 ) for <term> predicting top-level boundaries </term> , the <term> machine learning approach </term> that combines <term> lexical-cohesion and conversational features </term> performs best , and ( 3 ) <term> conversational cues </term> , such as <term> cue phrases </term> and <term> overlapping speech </term> , are better indicators for the top-level prediction task .	#10567 Examination of the effect of features shows that predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries are two distinct tasks: (1) for predicting subtopic boundaries, the lexical cohesion-based approach alone can achieve competitive results, (2) forpredicting top-level boundaries, the machine learning approach that combines lexical-cohesion and conversational features performs best, and (3) conversational cues, such as cue phrases and overlapping speech, are better indicators for the top-level prediction task.
tech,46-5-E06-1035,bq	Examination of the effect of <term> features </term> shows that <term> predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries </term> are two distinct tasks : ( 1 ) for predicting <term> subtopic boundaries </term> , the <term> lexical cohesion-based approach </term> alone can achieve competitive results , ( 2 ) for <term> predicting top-level boundaries </term> , the <term> machine learning approach </term> that combines <term> lexical-cohesion and conversational features </term> performs best , and ( 3 ) <term> conversational cues </term> , such as <term> cue phrases </term> and <term> overlapping speech </term> , are better indicators for the top-level prediction task .	#10572 Examination of the effect of features shows that predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries are two distinct tasks: (1) for predicting subtopic boundaries, the lexical cohesion-based approach alone can achieve competitive results, (2) for predicting top-level boundaries, themachine learning approach that combines lexical-cohesion and conversational features performs best, and (3) conversational cues, such as cue phrases and overlapping speech, are better indicators for the top-level prediction task.
other,51-5-E06-1035,bq	Examination of the effect of <term> features </term> shows that <term> predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries </term> are two distinct tasks : ( 1 ) for predicting <term> subtopic boundaries </term> , the <term> lexical cohesion-based approach </term> alone can achieve competitive results , ( 2 ) for <term> predicting top-level boundaries </term> , the <term> machine learning approach </term> that combines <term> lexical-cohesion and conversational features </term> performs best , and ( 3 ) <term> conversational cues </term> , such as <term> cue phrases </term> and <term> overlapping speech </term> , are better indicators for the top-level prediction task .	#10577 Examination of the effect of features shows that predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries are two distinct tasks: (1) for predicting subtopic boundaries, the lexical cohesion-based approach alone can achieve competitive results, (2) for predicting top-level boundaries, the machine learning approach that combineslexical-cohesion and conversational features performs best, and (3) conversational cues, such as cue phrases and overlapping speech, are better indicators for the top-level prediction task.
other,62-5-E06-1035,bq	Examination of the effect of <term> features </term> shows that <term> predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries </term> are two distinct tasks : ( 1 ) for predicting <term> subtopic boundaries </term> , the <term> lexical cohesion-based approach </term> alone can achieve competitive results , ( 2 ) for <term> predicting top-level boundaries </term> , the <term> machine learning approach </term> that combines <term> lexical-cohesion and conversational features </term> performs best , and ( 3 ) <term> conversational cues </term> , such as <term> cue phrases </term> and <term> overlapping speech </term> , are better indicators for the top-level prediction task .	#10588 Examination of the effect of features shows that predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries are two distinct tasks: (1) for predicting subtopic boundaries, the lexical cohesion-based approach alone can achieve competitive results, (2) for predicting top-level boundaries, the machine learning approach that combines lexical-cohesion and conversational features performs best, and (3)conversational cues, such as cue phrases and overlapping speech, are better indicators for the top-level prediction task.
other,67-5-E06-1035,bq	Examination of the effect of <term> features </term> shows that <term> predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries </term> are two distinct tasks : ( 1 ) for predicting <term> subtopic boundaries </term> , the <term> lexical cohesion-based approach </term> alone can achieve competitive results , ( 2 ) for <term> predicting top-level boundaries </term> , the <term> machine learning approach </term> that combines <term> lexical-cohesion and conversational features </term> performs best , and ( 3 ) <term> conversational cues </term> , such as <term> cue phrases </term> and <term> overlapping speech </term> , are better indicators for the top-level prediction task .	#10593 Examination of the effect of features shows that predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries are two distinct tasks: (1) for predicting subtopic boundaries, the lexical cohesion-based approach alone can achieve competitive results, (2) for predicting top-level boundaries, the machine learning approach that combines lexical-cohesion and conversational features performs best, and (3) conversational cues, such ascue phrases and overlapping speech, are better indicators for the top-level prediction task.
other,70-5-E06-1035,bq	Examination of the effect of <term> features </term> shows that <term> predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries </term> are two distinct tasks : ( 1 ) for predicting <term> subtopic boundaries </term> , the <term> lexical cohesion-based approach </term> alone can achieve competitive results , ( 2 ) for <term> predicting top-level boundaries </term> , the <term> machine learning approach </term> that combines <term> lexical-cohesion and conversational features </term> performs best , and ( 3 ) <term> conversational cues </term> , such as <term> cue phrases </term> and <term> overlapping speech </term> , are better indicators for the top-level prediction task .	#10596 Examination of the effect of features shows that predicting top-level and predicting subtopic boundaries are two distinct tasks: (1) for predicting subtopic boundaries, the lexical cohesion-based approach alone can achieve competitive results, (2) for predicting top-level boundaries, the machine learning approach that combines lexical-cohesion and conversational features performs best, and (3) conversational cues, such as cue phrases andoverlapping speech, are better indicators for the top-level prediction task.
other,5-6-E06-1035,bq	We also find that the <term> transcription errors </term> inevitable in <term> ASR output </term> have a negative impact on models that combine <term> lexical-cohesion and conversational features </term> , but do not change the general preference of approach for the two tasks .	#10613 We also find that thetranscription errors inevitable in ASR output have a negative impact on models that combine lexical-cohesion and conversational features, but do not change the general preference of approach for the two tasks.
other,9-6-E06-1035,bq	We also find that the <term> transcription errors </term> inevitable in <term> ASR output </term> have a negative impact on models that combine <term> lexical-cohesion and conversational features </term> , but do not change the general preference of approach for the two tasks .	#10617 We also find that the transcription errors inevitable inASR output have a negative impact on models that combine lexical-cohesion and conversational features, but do not change the general preference of approach for the two tasks.
other,19-6-E06-1035,bq	We also find that the <term> transcription errors </term> inevitable in <term> ASR output </term> have a negative impact on models that combine <term> lexical-cohesion and conversational features </term> , but do not change the general preference of approach for the two tasks .	#10627 We also find that the transcription errors inevitable in ASR output have a negative impact on models that combinelexical-cohesion and conversational features, but do not change the general preference of approach for the two tasks.


	in Help