Manual vs Automatic Bitext Extraction

2018

Full text Open access: Hybrid Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.63317/3e7ocg3pz9e6
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

We compare manual and automatic approaches to the problem of extracting bitexts from the Web in the framework of a case study on building a Russian-Kazakh parallel corpus.Our findings suggest that targeted, site-specific crawling results in cleaner bitexts with a higher ratio of parallel sentences.We also find that general crawlers combined with boilerplate removal tools tend to retrieve shorter texts, as some content gets cleaned out with the markup.When it comes to sentence splitting and alignment we show that investing some effort in data pre-and post-processing as well as fiddling with off-the-shelf solutions pays a noticeable dividend.Overall we observe that, depending on the source, automatic bitext extraction methods may lack severely in coverage (retrieve fewer sentence pairs) and on average are fewer precise (retrieve less parallel sentence pairs).We conclude that if one aims at extracting high-quality bitexts for a small number of language pairs, automatic methods best be avoided, or at least used with caution.