This paper proposes a novel mixed-initiative method called SOLVENT that has the crowd annotate relevant parts of a document based on purpose and mechanism and representing the documents on a vector space. The authors identify that representing technical documents using the purpose-mechanism concept with crowd workers has obstacles such as technical jargon, multiple sub-problems in one document, and the presence of understanding-oriented papers. Therefore, the authors modify the structure to hold background, purpose, mechanism, and findings instead. With each document represented by this structure, the authors were able to apply natural language processing techniques to perform analogical queries. The authors found better query results than baseline all-words representations. To scale the software, the authors made workers of Upwork and Mturk annotate technical documents. The authors found that the workers struggled with the concept of purpose and mechanism, but still provided improvements for analogy-mining.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I think this study will\ngo nicely together with document summarization studies. It would especially\nhelp since the annotations are done by specific categories. I remember one of\nour class\u2019s project involved ETDs and required summaries. I think this study\ncould have benefited that project given enough time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This study could also have benefited my study. One of the sample use-cases that the paper introduced was improving creative collaboration between users. This is similar to my project which is about providing creative references for a creative writer. However, if I want to apply this study to my project, I would need to additionally label each of the references provided by the Mturk workers by purpose and mechanism. This will cost me additional funds for providing one creative reference. This study would have been very useful if I had enough money and wanted more quality content rankings in terms of analogy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It was interesting that the authors mentioned different domain papers could still have the same purpose-mechanism. It made me wonder if researchers would really want similar purpose-mechanism papers on a different domain. I understand multi-disciplinary work is being highlighted these days but would each of the disciplines involved in a study try to address the same purpose and mechanism? Wouldn\u2019t they address different components of the project?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The followings are the\nquestions that I had while reading the paper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. The paper notes that\nmany technical documents are understanding-oriented papers that have no\npurpose-mechanism mappings. The authors resolved this problem by defining a\nlarger mapping that is able to include these documents. Do you think the query\nresults would have had higher quality if the mapping was kept compact instead\nof increasing the size? For example, would it have helped if the system separated\npurpose-mechanism and purpose-findings?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2. As mentioned in my\nreflection, do you think the disciplines involved in a multi-disciplinary\nproject all have the same purpose and mechanism? If not, why?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3. Would you use this\npaper for your project? To put in other words, does your project require users\nor the system to locate analogy inside a text document? How would you use the\nsystem? What kind of queries would you need out of the combinations possible\n(background, purpose, mechanism, findings)?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This paper proposes a novel mixed-initiative method called SOLVENT that has the crowd annotate relevant parts of a document based on purpose and mechanism and representing the documents on a vector space. The authors identify that representing technical documents using the purpose-mechanism concept with crowd workers has obstacles such as technical jargon, multiple sub-problems in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":286,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[106,109],"class_list":["post-1154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-class14","tag-solvent"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/cs6724s20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/cs6724s20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/cs6724s20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/cs6724s20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/286"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/cs6724s20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1154"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/cs6724s20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1154\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1155,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/cs6724s20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1154\/revisions\/1155"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/cs6724s20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/cs6724s20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.cs.vt.edu\/cs6724s20\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}