(277) previous ~ index ~ next
To: "Strzalkowski, Tomek (CRD)" <strzalkowski@crd.ge.com>
From: "George Doddington" <doddington@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: index file choices
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 00:10:19 -0500
>As far as I can say, FDCH is a true manual transcript (or as close to one
>as we can get) while CCAP is a degraded manual transcript. Thus lacking
>anything better CCAP could do as a poor substitute, but I see no reason
>why it should be used as manual if FDCH is available. Since we are
interested
>in performance contrasts, both FDCH vs. ASR and CCAP vs. ASR are of
>interest, although for somewhat different reasons. For me, manual = FDCH.
Yes, you're absolutely right. The reason that CCAP was chosen is simply
that it exists for all of the data, whereas FDCH covers only part of the
data. Therefore CCAP may be compared with ASR over all audio sources.
That is why CCAP was designated as the manual transcription, with the
belief that, for TDT tasks, CCAP will provide similar results to FDCH,
even if the CCAP transcription is not as faithful as the FDCH version.
It will be interesting, of course, to compare TDT performance differences
between CCAP and FDCH on the subset of stories for which FDCH transcripts
exist.
-----------------------
George Doddington in McLean, VA. doddington@nist.gov or 703/556-3434
(277) previous ~ index ~ next
Last updated Wed Feb 3 10:44:19 1999