When collecting subjective human ratings of items, it can be difficult to measure and enforce data quality due to task subjectivity and lack of insight into how judges arrive at each rating decision. To address this, we propose requiring judges to provide a specific type of rationale underlying each rating decision. We evaluate this approach in the domain of Information Retrieval, where human judges rate the relevance of Webpages. Costbenefit analysis over 10,000 judgments collected on Mechanical Turk suggests a win-win: experienced crowd workers provide rationales with no increase in task completion time while providing further benefits, including more reliable judgments and greater transparency 1 .

When collecting item ratings from human judges, it can be difficult to measure and enforce data quality due to task subjectivity and lack of transparency into how judges make each rating decision. To address this, we investigate asking judges to provide a specific form of rationale supporting each rating decision. We evaluate this approach on an information retrieval task in which human judges rate the relevance of Web pages for different search topics. Cost-benefit analysis over 10,000 judgments collected on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk suggests a win-win. Firstly, rationales yield a multitude of benefits: more reliable judgments, greater transparency for evaluating both human raters and their judgments, reduced need for expert gold, the opportunity for dual-supervision from ratings and rationales, and added value from the rationales themselves. Secondly, once experienced in the task, crowd workers provide rationales with almost no increase in task completion time. Consequently, we can realize the above benefits with minimal additional cost.

-In this paper, we propose a generic text summarization method that generates summaries of Turkish texts by ranking sentences according to their scores calculated using their surface level features and extracting the highest ranked ones from the original documents. In order to extract sentences which form a summary with an extensive coverage of main content of the text and less redundancy, we use the features such as term frequency, key phrase, centrality, title similarity and position of the sentence in the original text. Sentence rank is computed using a score function that uses its feature values and the weights of the features. The best feature weights are learned using machine learning techniques with the help of human constructed summaries. Performance evaluation is conducted by comparing summarization outputs with manual summaries generated by 25 independent human evaluators. This paper presents one of the first Turkish summarization systems, and its results are promising.

On June 24, 2018, Turkey conducted a highly consequential election in which the Turkish people elected their president and parliament in the first election under a new presidential system. During the election period, the Turkish people extensively shared their political opinions on Twitter. One aspect of polarization among the electorate was support for or opposition to the reelection of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In this paper, we present an unsupervised method for target-specific stance detection in a polarized setting, specifically Turkish politics, achieving 90% precision in identifying user stances, while maintaining more than 80% recall. The method involves representing users in an embedding space using Google's Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) based multilingual universal sentence encoder. The representations are then projected onto a lower dimensional space in a manner that reflects similarities and are consequently clustered. We show the effectiveness of our method in properly clustering users of divergent groups across multiple targets that include political figures, different groups, and parties. We perform our analysis on a large dataset of 108M Turkish election-related tweets along with the timeline tweets of 168k Turkish users, who authored 213M tweets. Given the resultant user stances, we are able to observe correlations between topics and compute topic polarization.

When collecting subjective human ratings of items, it can be difficult to measure and enforce data quality due to task subjectivity and lack of insight into how judges’ arrive at each rating decision. To address this, we propose requiring judges to provide a specific type of rationale underlying each rating decision. We evaluate this approach in the domain of Information Retrieval, where human judges rate the relevance of Webpages to search queries. Cost-benefit analysis over 10,000 judgments collected on Mechanical Turk suggests a win-win: experienced crowd workers provide rationales with almost no increase in task completion time while providing a multitude of further benefits, including more reliable judgments and greater transparency for evaluating both human raters and their judgments. Further benefits include reduced need for expert gold, the opportunity for dual-supervision from ratings and rationales, and added value from the rationales themselves.