A procedure for quantitatively comparing the syntactic coverage of English

By Ezra Black, S. Abney, Dan Flickinger, Claudia Gdaniec, Ralph Grishman, P. Harrison, Donald Hindle, Robert Ingria, F. Jelinek, Judith L. Klavans and 2 more. 1991

Citations in the corpus

• A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scores (2018, neutral): “An instructive comparison comes from the evaluation of English parsing scores, where numbers have been safely compared across papers for decades using the PARSEVAL metric (Black et al., 1991).”
• The Stanford Typed Dependencies Representation (2008, neutral): “…agree with the widespread sentiment that dependency-based evaluation of parsers avoids many of the problems of the traditional Par-seval measures (Black et al., 1991), and to the extent that the Stanford dependency representation is an effective representation for the tasks envisioned, it is…”
• Treebank Annotation Schemes and Parser Evaluation for German (2007, unknown): “…comparison of unlexicalised PCFG parsing (K¤ubler, 2005) trained and evaluated on the German NEGRA (Skut et al., 1997) and the T¤uBa-D/Z (Telljohann et al., 2004) treebanks using LoPar (Schmid, 2000) shows a difference in parsing results of about 16%, using the PARSEVAL metric (Black et al., 1991).”