Automatic Genre Identification for Massive Text Collections: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Lindsay Dong and Version 1 by Taja Kuzman.

The paper explores automatic genre identification, a text classification task, as a method of providing insights into the content of large text collections. It evaluates various machine learning models for their generalization capabilities, including pre-Transformer approaches, BERT-like encoder models and recent instruction-tuned GPT large language models. As a result, it introduces the first publicly-available benchmark for this task. What is more, the paper introduces a a high-performing genre classifier that can be applied to numerous languages is introduced.

  • machine learning
  • text classification
  • large language models
  • genre classification
  • automatic genre identification
  • text genres
  • registers
  • text domain classification

1. Introduction

The advent of the World Wide Web provided us with massive amounts of text, useful for information retrieval and the creation of web corpora, which are the basis of many language technologies, including large language models and machine translation systems. To be able to access relevant documents more efficiently, researchers have aimed to integrate genre identification into information retrieval tools [1,2][1][2] so that users can specify which genre are they searching for, e.g., a news article, a scientific article, a recipe, and so on. In addition, the web has allowed us easy and fast access to a collection of large monolingual and parallel corpora. Language technologies, such as large language models, are trained on millions of texts. An important factor for achieving a reliable and good performance of these models is assuring that the massive collections of texts are of high quality [3]. The automatic prediction of genres is a robust method for obtaining insights into the constitution of corpora and their differences [4]. This motivates research on automatic genre identification, which is a text classification task that aims to assign genre labels to texts based on their conventional function and form, as well as the author’s purpose [5].

2. Automatic Genre Identification

2.1. Impact of Automatic Genre Identification

Having information on the genre of a text is useful for a wide range of fields, including information retrieval, information security, natural language processing, and general, computational and corpus linguistics. While some of the fields mainly base their research on texts that are already annotated with genres, two fields place a greater emphasis on the development of models for automatic genre identification: information retrieval and computational linguistics. With the advent of the World Wide Web, unprecedented quantities of texts became available for querying and collecting. Due to the high cost and time constraints associated with manual annotation, researchers turned their attention toward developing models for automatic genre identification. This approach enables the effortless enrichment of thousands of texts with genre information. The majority of previous works [1,2,7,8,9,10,11,12][1][2][6][7][8][9][10][11] focused on developing models from an information retrieval standpoint. Their objective was to integrate genre classifiers into information retrieval tools, using genre as an additional search query criterion to enhance the relevance of search results [13][12].
Automatic genre identification has also been researched in the field of computational linguistics, specifically in connection with corpora creation, curation, and analysis. Collecting texts from the web is a rapid and efficient method for gathering extensive text datasets for any language that is present on the web [14][13]. However, due to the automated nature of this collection process, the composition of web text collections remains unknown [15][14]. Thus, several previous studies [16,17,18,19][15][16][17][18] researched automatic genre identification with the goal of enriching web corpora with genre metadata. While information retrieval studies mainly focused on a smaller specific set of categories, deemed to be relevant to the users of information retrieval tools, computational linguistics studies focused on developing sets of genre categories that would be able to cover the diversity of genres found on the web.

2.2. Challenges in Automatic Genre Identification

To be able to use an automatic genre classifier for the end uses described in the previous subsection, it is crucial that the classifier is robust, that is, it is able to generalize to new datasets. While numerous studies have focused on developing automatic genre classifiers, they were “self-contained, and corpus-dependent” [24][19]. Most studies reported the results of automatic genre identification based solely on their own datasets, annotated with a specific genre schema. This hinders any comparison between the performance of classifiers from different studies, either in in-dataset or cross-dataset scenarios. In 2010, a review study encompassed all the main genre datasets developed up to that time [1,2,7,16,25,26][1][2][6][15][20][21]. It showed that if wescholars train a classifier on the training split and evaluate it on the test split from the same genre dataset, the results show a rather good performance of the model. However, cross-dataset comparisons, that is, testing the classifiers on a different dataset, revealed that the classifiers are incapable of generalizing to a novel dataset [27][22]. The applicability of these models for end use is thus questionable.
To address concerns regarding classifier reliability and generalizability, in the past decade, researchers have invested considerable effort in refining genre schemata, genre annotation processes, and dataset collection methods [17,19,28,29,30][16][18][23][24][25]. These studies addressed the difficulties with this task, which impact both manual and automatic genre identification. The main challenges identified were (1) varying levels of genre prototypicality in web texts, (2) the presence of features of multiple genres in one text, and (3) the existence of texts that might not have any discernible purpose or features [1,31][1][26].
Recently, three approaches have proposed genre schemata specifically designed to address the diversity of web corpora: the schemata of the English CORE dataset [17][16], the Slovenian GINCO dataset [19][18], and the English and Russian Functional Text Dimensions (FTD) datasets [28][23]. All of them use categories that cover the functions of texts, and some of the categories have similar names and descriptions, which suggests that they might be comparable. This question was partially addressed by Kuzman et al. [32][27] who explored the comparability of the CORE and GINCO datasets by mapping the categories to a joint schema and performing cross-dataset experiments. Despite the datasets being in different languages, the results showed that they are comparable enough to allow cross-dataset and cross-lingual transfer. Similarly, Repo et al. [33][28] reported promising cross-lingual and cross-dataset transfer when using the CORE dataset and Swedish, French, and Finnish datasets annotated with the CORE schema. Training a classifier on multiple datasets not only improves its cross-lingual capabilities but also assures better generalizability to a new dataset by mitigating topical biases [34][29]. This is important since, in contrast to topic detection, genre classification should not rely solely on lexical information such as keywords. The classification of genre categories necessitates the identification of higher-level patterns embedded within the texts, which often stem from textual or syntactic characteristics that are not directly linked to the specific topic addressed in the document.

2.3. Machine Learning Methods for Automatic Genre Identification

The machine learning results reported in the existing literature are dependent on a specific dataset that the researchers used for training and testing the classifier, a machine learning technology of their choosing, and are reported using different metrics. Thus, it remains unclear which machine learning method is the most suitable for automatic genre identification, especially in regard to its generalizability to novel datasets.
In previous research, the choice of machine learning model was primarily determined by the progress achieved in developing machine learning technologies up to that particular point in time. Before the emergence of neural networks, the most frequently used machine learning method for automatic genre identification was support vector machines (SVMs) [27[22][30][31][32],35,36,37], which continues to be valuable for analyzing which textual features are the most informative in this task [38,39][33][34]. Other non-neural methods, including discriminant analysis [40[35][36],41], decision tree classifiers [8[7][37],42], and the Naive Bayes algorithm [10,40][9][35], were also used for genre classification. Multiple studies searched for the most informative features in this task. They experimented with lexical features (words, word or character n-grams), grammatical features (part-of-speech tags) [31[26][33],38], text statistics [8][7], visual features of HTML web pages such as HTML tags and images [43[38][39][40],44,45], and URLs of web documents [10,46,47][9][41][42]. However, the results for the discriminative features varied across studies and datasets. One noteworthy limitation of non-neural models lies in their reliance on feature selection, which necessitates a new exploration of suitable features for every genre dataset and machine learning method. Furthermore, as the choice of features relies heavily on the dataset, this hinders the model’s ability to generalize to new datasets or languages [48][43].
Then, the developments in the NLP field shifted the focus to neural networks, which showed very promising performance in this task. One of the main advantages of these models is that their architecture involves a machine-learned embedding model that maps a text to a feature vector [48][43]. Thus, manual feature selection was no longer needed. Traditional methods were outperformed in this task by the linear fastText [6][44] model [49][45]. However, its performance diminishes when confronted with a small dataset encompassing a larger set of categories [19][18].
This is where deep neural Transformer-based BERT-like language models proved to be extremely capable, surpassing the fastText model by approximately 30 points in micro- and macro-F1 [19][18]. Transformer is a neural network architecture, based on self-attention mechanisms, which significantly improve the efficiency of training language models on massive text data [50][46]. Following the introduction of this groundbreaking architecture, numerous large-scale Transformer-based Pre-Trained Language Models (PLMs) arose. PLMs can be divided into autoregressive models, such as GPT (Generative Pre-Trained Transformer) [51][47] models, and autoencoder models, such as BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) [52][48] models [48][43]. The main difference between them is the method used for learning a textual representation: while autoregressive models predict a text sequence word by word based on the previous prediction, autoencoder models are trained by randomly masking some parts of the text sequence or corrupting the text sequence by replacing some of its parts [48][43]. While autoregressive models have been mainly used for generative tasks, autoencoder models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities when fine-tuned to categorization tasks, including automatic genre identification. Thus, some recent studies have used BERT-like Transformer-based language models, which were pre-trained on massive amounts of text collections and fine-tuned on genre datasets. These models were shown to be capable of achieving good results even when trained on only around a thousand texts [19][18] and provided with only the first part of the documents [53][49]. Models trained on approximately 40,000 instances and models trained on only a few thousand instances have demonstrated comparable performance [32,33][27][28]. These results indicate that massive amounts of data are no longer essential for the models to acquire the ability to differentiate between genres. Additionally, fine-tuned BERT-like models have exhibited promising performance in cross-lingual and cross-dataset experiments [32,33,54][27][28][50].
Among the available monolingual and multilingual autoencoder models, the multilingual XLM-RoBERTa model [55][51] has proven to be the most appropriate for the task of automatic genre identification. It has outperformed other multilingual models and achieved comparable or even superior results to monolingual models [32,33,54][27][28][50]. Nevertheless, despite the superior performance exhibited by fine-tuned BERT-like Transformer models, a considerable proportion of instances—up to a quarter—continue to be misclassified. The most recent in-dataset evaluations of fine-tuned BERT-like models on the CORE [17][16] and GINCO [19][18] datasets yielded micro-F1 scores ranging from 0.68 to 0.76 [19,33,53][18][28][49]. This demonstrates that this text categorization task is much more complex than tasks that mainly depend on lexical features such as topic detection, where the state-of-the-art BERT-like models achieve an accuracy of up to 0.99 [48][43].
While BERT-like models demonstrate exceptional performance in this task, they still require fine-tuning using a minimum of a thousand manually annotated texts. The process of constructing genre datasets presents several challenges, which involve defining the concept of genre, establishing a genre schema, and collecting instances to be annotated. Additionally, it is crucial to provide extensive training to annotators to ensure a high level of inter-annotator agreement. Manual annotation is a resource-intensive endeavor, demanding substantial time, effort, and financial investment. Furthermore, despite great efforts to assure reliable annotation, inter-annotator agreement in annotation campaigns often remains low, consequently impacting the reliability of the annotated data [1,17,30][1][16][25].
Recent advancements in the field have shown that using instruction-tuned GPT-like Transformer models, more specifically, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models [56][52], prompted in a zero-shot or a few-shot setting, could make these large manual annotation campaigns redundant, and only a few hundred annotated instances would be needed for testing the models. These recent GPT models have been optimized for dialogue based on reinforcement learning with human feedback [57][53]. While they were primarily designed as a dialogue system, there has recently been a growing interest among researchers in investigating their capabilities in various NLP tasks such as sentiment analysis, textual similarity, natural inference, named-entity recognition, and machine translation. While some studies have shown that the GPT-3.5 model was outperformed by the fine-tuned BERT-like large language models [58][54], it exhibited state-of-the-art results in stance detection [59][55], high performance in implicit hate speech categorization [60][56], and competitive performance in machine translation of high-resource languages [61][57]. Building upon these findings, a recent pilot study [62][58] explored its performance in automatic genre identification. The study used the model through the ChatGPT interactive interface, as at the time of the research, the model was not yet available through an API. Used in a zero-shot setting, the performance of the GPT-3.5 model was compared to that of the XLM-RoBERTa model [55][51], fine-tuned on genre datasets. Remarkably, the GPT-3.5 model outperformed the fine-tuned genre classifier and exhibited consistent performance, even when applied to Slovenian, an under-resourced language. Furthermore, OpenAI has recently introduced the GPT-4 model, which was shown to outperform the GPT-3.5 model family and other state-of-the-art models across a range of NLP tasks [63][59]. These findings suggest the significant potential of using GPT-like language models for automatic genre identification.

References

  1. Zu Eissen, S.M.; Stein, B. Genre classification of web pages. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual German Conference in AI, KI 2004, Ulm, Germany, 20–24 September 2004; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; pp. 256–269.
  2. Vidulin, V.; Luštrek, M.; Gams, M. Using genres to improve search engines. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop: Towards Genre-Enabled Search Engines: The Impact of Natural Language Processing, Borovets, Bulgaria, 30 September 2007; pp. 45–51.
  3. Penedo, G.; Malartic, Q.; Hesslow, D.; Cojocaru, R.; Cappelli, A.; Alobeidli, H.; Pannier, B.; Almazrouei, E.; Launay, J. The RefinedWeb Dataset for Falcon LLM: Outperforming Curated Corpora with Web Data, and Web Data Only. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2306.01116.
  4. Kuzman, T.; Rupnik, P.; Ljubešić, N. Get to Know Your Parallel Data: Performing English Variety and Genre Classification over MaCoCu Corpora. In Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on NLP for Similar Languages, Varieties and Dialects (VarDial 2023), Dubrovnik, Croatia, 5–6 May 2023; pp. 91–103.
  5. Orlikowski, W.J.; Yates, J. Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 1994, 39, 541–574.
  6. Stubbe, A.; Ringlstetter, C. Recognizing genres. In Proceedings of the Towards a Reference Corpus of Web Genres, Birmingham, UK, 27 July 2007.
  7. Finn, A.; Kushmerick, N. Learning to classify documents according to genre. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2006, 57, 1506–1518.
  8. Roussinov, D.; Crowston, K.; Nilan, M.; Kwasnik, B.; Cai, J.; Liu, X. Genre based navigation on the web. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA, 6 January 2001.
  9. Priyatam, P.N.; Iyengar, S.; Perumal, K.; Varma, V. Don’t Use a Lot When Little Will Do: Genre Identification Using URLs. Res. Comput. Sci. 2013, 70, 233–243.
  10. Boese, E.S. Stereotyping the Web: Genre Classification of Web Documents. Ph.D. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2005.
  11. Stein, B.; Eissen, S.M.Z.; Lipka, N. Web genre analysis: Use cases, retrieval models, and implementation issues. In Genres on the Web; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 167–189.
  12. Crowston, K.; Kwaśnik, B.; Rubleske, J. Problems in the use-centered development of a taxonomy of web genres. In Genres on the Web; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 69–84.
  13. Bañón, M.; Esplà-Gomis, M.; Forcada, M.L.; García-Romero, C.; Kuzman, T.; Ljubešić, N.; van Noord, R.; Sempere, L.P.; Ramírez-Sánchez, G.; Rupnik, P.; et al. MaCoCu: Massive collection and curation of monolingual and bilingual data: Focus on under-resourced languages. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, Ghent, Belgium, 1–3 June 2022; pp. 301–302.
  14. Baroni, M.; Bernardini, S.; Ferraresi, A.; Zanchetta, E. The WaCky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Lang. Resour. Eval. 2009, 43, 209–226.
  15. Sharoff, S. In the Garden and in the Jungle. In Genres on the Web; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 149–166.
  16. Egbert, J.; Biber, D.; Davies, M. Developing a bottom-up, user-based method of web register classification. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2015, 66, 1817–1831.
  17. Laippala, V.; Kyllönen, R.; Egbert, J.; Biber, D.; Pyysalo, S. Toward multilingual identification of online registers. In Proceedings of the 22nd Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics, Turku, Finland, 30 September–2 October 2019; pp. 292–297.
  18. Kuzman, T.; Rupnik, P.; Ljubešić, N. The GINCO Training Dataset for Web Genre Identification of Documents Out in the Wild. In Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, Marseille, France, 20–25 June 2022; pp. 1584–1594.
  19. Rehm, G.; Santini, M.; Mehler, A.; Braslavski, P.; Gleim, R.; Stubbe, A.; Symonenko, S.; Tavosanis, M.; Vidulin, V. Towards a Reference Corpus of Web Genres for the Evaluation of Genre Identification Systems. In Proceedings of the LREC, Marrakech, Morocco, 26 May–1 June 2008.
  20. Berninger, V.F.; Kim, Y.; Ross, S. Building a document genre corpus: A profile of the KRYS I corpus. In Proceedings of the BCS-IRSG Workshop on Corpus Profiling, London, UK, 18 October 2008; pp. 1–10.
  21. Santini, M. Automatic Identification of Genre in Web Pages. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK, 2007.
  22. Sharoff, S.; Wu, Z.; Markert, K. The Web Library of Babel: Evaluating genre collections. In Proceedings of the LREC, Valletta, Malta, 17–23 May 2010.
  23. Sharoff, S. Functional text dimensions for the annotation of web corpora. Corpora 2018, 13, 65–95.
  24. Asheghi, N.R.; Sharoff, S.; Markert, K. Crowdsourcing for web genre annotation. Lang. Resour. Eval. 2016, 50, 603–641.
  25. Suchomel, V. Genre Annotation of Web Corpora: Scheme and Issues. In Future Technologies Conference; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 738–754.
  26. Sharoff, S. Genre annotation for the web: Text-external and text-internal perspectives. Regist. Stud. 2021, 3, 1–32.
  27. Kuzman, T.; Ljubešić, N.; Pollak, S. Assessing Comparability of Genre Datasets via Cross-Lingual and Cross-Dataset Experiments. In Jezikovne Tehnologije in Digitalna Humanistika: Zbornik Konference; Fišer, D., Erjavec, T., Eds.; Institute of Contemporary History: München, Germany, 2022; pp. 100–107.
  28. Repo, L.; Skantsi, V.; Rönnqvist, S.; Hellström, S.; Oinonen, M.; Salmela, A.; Biber, D.; Egbert, J.; Pyysalo, S.; Laippala, V. Beyond the English web: Zero-shot cross-lingual and lightweight monolingual classification of registers. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop, EACL 2021, Online, 19–23 April 2021; Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL): Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 183–191. Available online: https://aclanthology.org/2021.eacl-srw.24.pdf (accessed on 6 August 2023).
  29. Lepekhin, M.; Sharoff, S. Estimating Confidence of Predictions of Individual Classifiers and Their Ensembles for the Genre Classification Task. In Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, Marseille, France, 20–25 June 2022; pp. 5974–5982.
  30. Rezapour Asheghi, N. Human Annotation and Automatic Detection of Web Genres. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, 2015.
  31. Laippala, V.; Luotolahti, J.; Kyröläinen, A.J.; Salakoski, T.; Ginter, F. Creating register sub-corpora for the Finnish Internet Parsebank. In Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics, Gothenburg, Sweden, 22–24 May 2017; pp. 152–161.
  32. Petrenz, P.; Webber, B. Stable classification of text genres. Comput. Linguist. 2011, 37, 385–393.
  33. Laippala, V.; Egbert, J.; Biber, D.; Kyröläinen, A.J. Exploring the role of lexis and grammar for the stable identification of register in an unrestricted corpus of web documents. Lang. Resour. Eval. 2021, 55, 757–788.
  34. Pritsos, D.; Stamatatos, E. Open set evaluation of web genre identification. Lang. Resour. Eval. 2018, 52, 949–968.
  35. Feldman, S.; Marin, M.A.; Ostendorf, M.; Gupta, M.R. Part-of-speech histograms for genre classification of text. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Taipei, Taiwan, 19–24 April 2009; pp. 4781–4784.
  36. Biber, D.; Egbert, J. Using grammatical features for automatic register identification in an unrestricted corpus of documents from the open web. J. Res. Des. Stat. Linguist. Commun. Sci. 2015, 2, 3–36.
  37. Dewdney, N.; Van Ess-Dykema, C.; MacMillan, R. The form is the substance: Classification of genres in text. In Proceedings of the ACL 2001 Workshop on Human Language Technology and Knowledge Management, Toulouse, France, 6–7 July 2001.
  38. Lim, C.S.; Lee, K.J.; Kim, G.C. Multiple sets of features for automatic genre classification of web documents. Inf. Process. Manag. 2005, 41, 1263–1276.
  39. Levering, R.; Cutler, M.; Yu, L. Using visual features for fine-grained genre classification of web pages. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008), Waikoloa, HI, USA, 7–10 January 2008; p. 131.
  40. Maeda, A.; Hayashi, Y. Automatic genre classification of Web documents using discriminant analysis for feature selection. In Proceedings of the 2009 Second International Conference on the Applications of Digital Information and Web Technologies, London, UK, 4–6 August 2009; pp. 405–410.
  41. Abramson, M.; Aha, D.W. What’s in a URL? Genre Classification from URLs. In Proceedings of the Workshops at the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Toronto, Canada, 22–26 July 2012.
  42. Jebari, C. A pure URL-based genre classification of web pages. In Proceedings of the 2014 25th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, Munich, Germany, 1–5 September 2014; pp. 233–237.
  43. Minaee, S.; Kalchbrenner, N.; Cambria, E.; Nikzad, N.; Chenaghlu, M.; Gao, J. Deep Learning Based Text Classification: A Comprehensive Review. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2004.03705.
  44. Joulin, A.; Grave, É.; Bojanowski, P.; Mikolov, T. Bag of Tricks for Efficient Text Classification. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Valencia, Spain, 3–7 April 2017; pp. 427–431.
  45. Kuzman, T.; Ljubešić, N. Exploring the Impact of Lexical and Grammatical Features on Automatic Genre Identification. In Proceedings of the Odkrivanje Znanja in Podatkovna Skladišča—SiKDD, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 10 October 2022; Mladenić, D., Grobelnik, M., Eds.; Institut “Jožef Stefan”: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2022.
  46. Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A.N.; Kaiser, Ł.; Polosukhin, I. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, California, USA, 4–9 December 2017; pp. 6000–6010.
  47. Radford, A.; Narasimhan, K.; Salimans, T.; Sutskever, I. Improving Language Understanding by Generative Pre-Training. 2018. Available online: https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~amuham01/LING530/papers/radford2018improving.pdf (accessed on 6 August 2023).
  48. Kenton, J.D.M.W.C.; Toutanova, L.K. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT 2019), Minneapolis, USA, 2–7 June 2019; pp. 4171–4186.
  49. Laippala, V.; Rönnqvist, S.; Oinonen, M.; Kyröläinen, A.J.; Salmela, A.; Biber, D.; Egbert, J.; Pyysalo, S. Register identification from the unrestricted open Web using the Corpus of Online Registers of English. Lang. Resour. Eval. 2022, 57, 1045–1079.
  50. Rönnqvist, S.; Skantsi, V.; Oinonen, M.; Laippala, V. Multilingual and Zero-Shot is Closing in on Monolingual Web Register Classification. In Proceedings of the 23rd Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (NoDaLiDa), Reykjavik, Iceland, 31 May–2 June 2021; pp. 157–165.
  51. Conneau, A.; Khandelwal, K.; Goyal, N.; Chaudhary, V.; Wenzek, G.; Guzmán, F.; Grave, É.; Ott, M.; Zettlemoyer, L.; Stoyanov, V. Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 5–10 July 2020; pp. 8440–8451.
  52. OpenAI. ChatGPT General FAQ. 2023. Available online: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6783457-chatgpt-general-faq (accessed on 3 March 2023).
  53. Christiano, P.F.; Leike, J.; Brown, T.; Martic, M.; Legg, S.; Amodei, D. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, California, USA, 4–9 December 2017; pp. 4302–4310.
  54. Qin, C.; Zhang, A.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, J.; Yasunaga, M.; Yang, D. Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver? arXiv 2023, arXiv:2302.06476.
  55. Zhang, B.; Ding, D.; Jing, L. How would Stance Detection Techniques Evolve after the Launch of ChatGPT? arXiv 2022, arXiv:2212.14548.
  56. Huang, F.; Kwak, H.; An, J. Is ChatGPT better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speech. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2302.07736.
  57. Hendy, A.; Abdelrehim, M.; Sharaf, A.; Raunak, V.; Gabr, M.; Matsushita, H.; Kim, Y.J.; Afify, M.; Awadalla, H.H. How Good Are GPT Models at Machine Translation? A Comprehensive Evaluation. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2302.09210.
  58. Kuzman, T.; Ljubešić, N.; Mozetič, I. ChatGPT: Beginning of an End of Manual Annotation? Use Case of Automatic Genre Identification. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2303.03953.
  59. OpenAI. GPT-4 Technical Report. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2303.08774.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback