ArticlePloS one2024
Creating and validating the Fine-Grained Question Subjectivity Dataset (FQSD): A new benchmark for enhanced automatic subjective question answering systems.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the domain of question subjectivity classification, there exists a need for detailed datasets that can foster advancements in Automatic Subjective Question Answering (ASQA) systems. Addressing the prevailing research gaps, this paper introduces the Fine-Grained Question Subjectivity Dataset (FQSD), which comprises 10,000 questions. The dataset distinguishes between subjective and objective questions and offers additional categorizations such as Subjective-types (Target, Attitude, Reason, Yes/No, None) and Comparison-form (Single, Comparative). Annotation reliability was confirmed via robust evaluation techniques, yielding a Fleiss's Kappa score of 0.76 and Pearson correlation values up to 0.80 among three annotators. We benchmarked FQSD against existing datasets such as (Yu, Zha, and Chua 2012), SubjQA (Bjerva 2020), and ConvEx-DS (Hernandez-Bocanegra 2021). Our dataset excelled in scale, linguistic diversity, and syntactic complexity, establishing a new standard for future research. We employed visual methodologies to provide a nuanced understanding of the dataset and its classes. Utilizing transformer-based models like BERT, XLNET, and RoBERTa for validation, RoBERTa achieved an outstanding F1-score of 97%, confirming the dataset's efficacy for the advanced subjectivity classification task. Furthermore, we utilized Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) to elucidate model decision-making, ensuring transparent and reliable model predictions in subjectivity classification tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.