Evaluates the annotation quality of the TWNERTC corpus for Turkish named entity recognition (NER) and text categorization (TC) by comparing automated labels against human-verified ground truths. It measures how well coarse-grained and fine-grained entity types, as well as domain categories, align with human judgment across different noise-reduction post-processing variants. Use when the user wants to benchmark on TWNERTC, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports F1-Score.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill twnertc-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Twnertc Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-twnertc-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: twnertc-eval
description: Evaluates the annotation quality of the TWNERTC corpus for Turkish named entity recognition (NER) and text categorization (TC) by comparing automated labels against human-verified ground truths. It measures how well coarse-grained and fine-grained entity types, as well as domain categories, align with human judgment across different noise-reduction post-processing variants. Use when the user wants to benchmark on TWNERTC, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports F1-Score.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 1702.02363
bibtex_key: sahin2017twnertc
confidence: high
---
# twnertc-eval
> Automatically Annotated Turkish Corpus for Named Entity Recognition and Text Categorization using Large-Scale Gazetteers — H. Bahadir Sahin et al. (2017) (arXiv:1702.02363, 2017)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the annotation quality of the TWNERTC corpus for Turkish named entity recognition (NER) and text categorization (TC) by comparing automated labels against human-verified ground truths. It measures how well coarse-grained and fine-grained entity types, as well as domain categories, align with human judgment across different noise-reduction post-processing variants.
## Datasets
- **TWNERTC** — total ?; splits: test_ner (10000), test_tc (2000)
## Metrics
- `F1-Score` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Harmonic mean of precision and recall, calculated per entity type (Person, Org, Loc, Misc) and averaged across types. Formula: F1 = 2 * (Precision * Recall) / (Precision + Recall).
- `Top-K Agreement` — range: [0, 1]
- Percentage of instances where the human-annotated ground truth label appears within the top K predictions provided by the automated system or model.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Sentences containing automatically annotated entities (with coarse- or fine-grained types) or domain labels.
**Output**: Human-annotated ground truth labels: for NER, exact entity type tags (e.g., person, organization, location, misc, O); for TC, a ranked list of up to 5 domain categories.
## Scoring recipe
```python
# Coarse-Grained NER: Precision, Recall, F1
preds = [p for p, g in zip(predictions, golds) if g != 'O']
golds = [g for p, g in zip(predictions, golds) if g != 'O']
tp = sum(1 for p, g in zip(preds, golds) if p == g)
fp = sum(1 for p, g in zip(preds, golds) if p != g)
fn = sum(1 for p, g in zip(preds, golds) if g != p)
prec = tp / (tp + fp) if (tp + fp) > 0 else 0
rec = tp / (tp + fn) if (tp + fn) > 0 else 0
f1 = 2 * prec * rec / (prec + rec) if (prec + rec) > 0 else 0
# Fine-Grained NER & TC: Top-K Agreement
def top_k_agreement(preds, golds, k):
matches = sum(1 for p, g in zip(preds, golds) if g in p[:k])
return matches / len(preds)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Fine-grained NER ground truth is derived from an English model (FIGER) adapted to Turkish, which may introduce language-specific biases not present in pure human annotation.
- The 'Misc' entity type consistently yields the lowest F1-Score due to its broad coverage and high susceptibility to mismatching, which is expected but often overlooked.
- Ground truth for fine-grained and TC tasks is constructed via human ranking of model-generated candidates rather than manual annotation from scratch, making the evaluation a measure of candidate quality rather than absolute labeling accuracy.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We present precision, recall and F-score values in Table[4]... In Table[5], we present the F1-scores of trained models on each test set... Table[6] presents the human annotators evaluation on automated fine-grained NER datasets, given FIGER predictions as possible ground-truths. Annotators rank the provided ground-truths and we check their ranking agreements. Eventually, top-1 agreement is hard to fulfill since our gazetteers contains thousands of entity types, and an entity may have more than ten different possible options. On the other hand, top-5 agreements provide promising results considering the amount of possible ground-truths.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{sahin2017twnertc,
title={Automatically Annotated Turkish Corpus for Named Entity Recognition and Text Categorization using Large-Scale Gazetteers},
author={H. Bahadir Sahin et al. (2017)},
year={2017},
note={arXiv:1702.02363}
}
```
- arXiv: 1702.02363
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!