TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluación de resúmenes en español con Análisis Semántico Latente
T2 - Una implementación posible
AU - Venegas, René
PY - 2011
Y1 - 2011
N2 - Summary assessment is a complex task, due to the problems related to sistematicity and to the time it takes. These problems have motivated the study of reliable automatized assessment methods. In this scenario, the aim of this work is to identify an efficient method for assessing summaries, based on Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA). The summaries were written by students from secondary school in the city of Valparaíso, Chile. To acomplish the mentioned aim, we correlated the scores asigned by three teachers to 244 summaries of predominantly expository texts and 129 summaries of predominantly narrative texts with the scores provided by three computational methods, based on LSA. The methods are: 1) comparison of summaries with the source text, 2) comparison of summaries with a summary developed by the consensus of a group of linguists, and 3) comparison of summaries with three summaries constructed by three language teachers. General results show that the scores asigned by method 2 and 3 are statistically similar to the scores asigned by the teachers, when the source texts are predominantly narrative. However, this similarity is not so when the source text is predominantly expositive.
AB - Summary assessment is a complex task, due to the problems related to sistematicity and to the time it takes. These problems have motivated the study of reliable automatized assessment methods. In this scenario, the aim of this work is to identify an efficient method for assessing summaries, based on Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA). The summaries were written by students from secondary school in the city of Valparaíso, Chile. To acomplish the mentioned aim, we correlated the scores asigned by three teachers to 244 summaries of predominantly expository texts and 129 summaries of predominantly narrative texts with the scores provided by three computational methods, based on LSA. The methods are: 1) comparison of summaries with the source text, 2) comparison of summaries with a summary developed by the consensus of a group of linguists, and 3) comparison of summaries with three summaries constructed by three language teachers. General results show that the scores asigned by method 2 and 3 are statistically similar to the scores asigned by the teachers, when the source texts are predominantly narrative. However, this similarity is not so when the source text is predominantly expositive.
KW - Automatic summary assessment
KW - Expository texts.
KW - Latent semantic analysis
KW - Narrative texts
KW - Semantic similarity
KW - Text comprehension
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80054899932&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4067/S0718-09342011000100007
DO - 10.4067/S0718-09342011000100007
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:80054899932
SN - 0035-0451
VL - 44
SP - 85
EP - 102
JO - Revista Signos
JF - Revista Signos
IS - 75
ER -