ril 22, 2014 4:23 AM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: new dictionary lookup {was RE: lvg entries]
Highly Relevant
*DNorm: disease name normalization*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3810844/
"Disease names are often created by combining roots and affixes from Greek or
rd.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:52 PM
> To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
> Subject: RE: lvg entries
>
> Those variants are not used by the dictionary lookup. I did look at them
> to see if it was worthwhile for the new dictionary, but they are all over
> the place so I pa
, 2014 12:52 PM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: RE: lvg entries
Those variants are not used by the dictionary lookup. I did look at them to
see if it was worthwhile for the new dictionary, but they are all over the
place so I passed.
From: Miller
arvard.edu]
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 2:54 PM
> To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
> Subject: Re: lvg entries
>
> Thanks for tracking that down Andy.
>
> I am making a pass at UimaFit-izing the configuration parameters for all
> the annotators in the default pipeline, before I c
+1 false
-Original Message-
From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:timothy.mil...@childrens.harvard.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 2:54 PM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: lvg entries
Thanks for tracking that down Andy.
I am making a pass at UimaFit-izing the configuration parameters
ry entries for "nodes")
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:timothy.mil...@childrens.harvard.edu]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:33 PM
>> To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: lvg entries
>>
>> Quick follo
dText
Not sure what the intent there was.
-Original Message-
From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:timothy.mil...@childrens.harvard.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 11:16 AM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: lvg entries
Hmm... I don't see normalizedForm filled in. I see LVG filling in
t;lymph node" because "node", being the normalized form of "nodes",
> would be used when searching dictionary entries (in addition to searching
> dictionary entries for "nodes")
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:timothy.mil
t;nodes", would be used when searching dictionary entries (in addition to
> searching dictionary entries for "nodes")
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:timothy.mil...@childrens.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:33 PM
> To
ot;node", being the normalized form of "nodes", would be
used when searching dictionary entries (in addition to searching dictionary
entries for "nodes")
-Original Message-
From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:timothy.mil...@childrens.harvard.edu]
Sent: Thursday, Apr
) output of the normalizer function of the LVG component
-Original Message-
From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:timothy.mil...@childrens.harvard.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 3:34 PM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: lvg entries
Thanks James. Does it ring a bell to you that the origina
Quick follow-up since I was interested. The current dependency parser
does have the option to use ctakes lemmas or do its own lemmatizing, but
that doesn't use the lemma field, it uses the normalizedForm field. I'm
not sure if that field is actually ever filled in -- on my example data
it is always
Thanks James. Does it ring a bell to you that the original intention was
something like query expansion for a dictionary lookup?
Tim
On 04/17/2014 01:57 PM, Masanz, James J. wrote:
> Offhand I recall at least one of the dependency parsers used the Lemma
> annotations at one point.
> Not sure if
Offhand I recall at least one of the dependency parsers used the Lemma
annotations at one point.
Not sure if still does.
There is an option for turning off the posting of the lemmas to the cas.
Hope that helps
-Original Message-
From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:timothy.mil...@childrens.ha
17, 2014 1:25 PM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: lvg entries
Pei and I had a similar discussion in person -- mapping from lexical
variants to a stem might be useful. Pei also mentioned that one intended
use might have been searching the dictionary with lexical variants, but
I don't
Pei and I had a similar discussion in person -- mapping from lexical
variants to a stem might be useful. Pei also mentioned that one intended
use might have been searching the dictionary with lexical variants, but
I don't think that is done. Looking at the precision of the variants, I
think its hig
I don’t know of any applications within cTAKES that make use of this… The
reverse (mapping from these “variants” to the normal form) may be useful though.
Dima
On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:50, Miller, Timothy
wrote:
> Sure, just as an example, I gave it a note with about 1000 words. It
> generat
Sure, just as an example, I gave it a note with about 1000 words. It
generates 11500 NonEmptyFSList elements (each is basically one lexical
variant).
For the word "symptomatic", these are the first 10 of 20 lexical variants:
Symptomaticer/JJ
Symptomaticer/RB
Symptomaticed/VB
Symptomaticcing/VB
Sym
Tim, this is a very interesting observation. Could you please send a few
examples of what LVG generates? Both sensical and non :)
Dima
On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:28, Miller, Timothy
wrote:
> The LVG annotator creates an enormous number of "lemmas" for every
> WordToken in the CAS, and I'm wond
19 matches
Mail list logo
