A spell checker for a low-resourced and morphologically rich language
2017
- 42Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage42
- Abstract Views42
Artifact Description
Spell checking plays an important role in improving the quality of documents. Various e orts have been made towards advancement of spell checkers on other languages such as in English that has almost perfected spell checking system (e.g. Microsoft Word). However, few efforts were made to develop an efficient Filipino spell checkers. One major challenge of existing Filipino spell checkers, being dictionary based, is the lack of a complete dictionary to capture all infected forms (e.g. isinasama `including', isasama `will be included', and isinama `included' with the base form sama `include'), borrowing (e.g. magtex `to text' and nagtex `texted'), and code-switching (e.g. mag-text `to text', and magte-text `will be texting', and nag-text `texted' with the base form `text') of a word. Another is that existing systems cannot handle code-switching wherein the words that are valid is marked incorrect. In this research, a combined automaton and N-gram approach of spell checking is proposed for Filipino, a morphologically rich and low-resourced language. Furthermore, the research introduce a modi cation of metaphone algorithm to incorporate in the language for ranking the suggestion of the system based on phonetics. The system results to 81% recall, 53.64% precision, 64.53% f-measure, and 87.78% suggestion adequacy on 100 sentences taken from exercise documents of Filipino students.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know