@article{oai:ipsj.ixsq.nii.ac.jp:00071891,
 author = {福島, 拓 and 吉野, 孝 and Taku, Fukushima and Takashi, Yoshino},
 issue = {1},
 journal = {情報処理学会論文誌},
 month = {Jan},
 note = {現在，在日外国人数や訪日外国人数は増加傾向にあり，多言語によるコミュニケーションの機会が増加している．多言語環境支援の一方法として，用例を正確に多言語に翻訳した用例対訳が用いられている．用例対訳は正確な多言語間コミュニケーション支援が可能なため，医療分野などの正確性が求められる分野で多く利用されており，動的な用例対訳収集も行われている．しかし，これまで用例対訳を含めた用例収集の取り組みにおいて用例の正確性評価が行われてこなかった．用例の正確性評価がなされていない用例は，医療などの正確性を求められる分野で使用することはできない．そこで我々は，用例の正確性評価手法の確立を目指して複数の評価手法の比較評価を行った．本論文では，比較実験の結果から次の知見を得た．(1)用例の正確性評価実験の結果，評価軸を提示していない評価手法と提示した評価手法の間に相関関係がみられなかった．用例の正確性評価には，評価軸を明確に提示した評価手法が必要である．(2)用例の評価において，評価者は詳細な評価を行うことを好んだ．このため，2値の評価段階よりも複数の評価段階を選択可能とした評価手法が評価者から支持された．, Recently, there has been an increase in the number of foreign nationals residing in Japan  as well as the number of foreigners visiting the country. Consequently, there may be increased communication among people speaking different native languages. A parallel text that combines example sentences and their accurate translation is used  in a multilingual environment, for example, hospitals where the staff members and patients speak different languages. Some researchers are dynamically collecting example sentences or parallel texts.  However, they have not yet evaluated the accuracy of the collected sentences. An unevaluated example sentence cannot be used at needed accurate communication fields. Therefore, we evaluated evaluation methods to evaluate example sentence. We observed the following from the experiments in which evaluation methods were compared. (1) From the result of the experiment, there was no correlative relationship  between having evaluation axes and not having evaluation axes. It is necessary to indicate the evaluation axis explicitly when using this method. (2) Evaluators prefer detailed evaluation methods, and hence, they supported those methods in which the example sentences are evaluated in multiple steps.},
 pages = {131--139},
 title = {用例の正確性評価を目的とした用例評価手法の比較},
 volume = {52},
 year = {2011}
}