# Fit for What Purpose? NER Certification of Automatic Captions in English and Spanish
## 5 Results in Spanish  
The average AR obtained by [PERSON]'s captions in Spanish is lower than in English: 98.77%, as shown in Table 6. This is a 7 out of 10, or in other words, good captions. Levels 1 and 2 show a very good average AR of 99.21% and 99.2%, respectively, similar to the AR obtained in English. The difference between the two languages can be found in Level 3. Whereas in English the only substandard captions were those for Level 3 Extra (3 EXTRA_EN) (97.37%), in Spanish only the captions for 3A_ES reach the NER threshold. The other Level 3 captions fall below this mark: 97.86% (3B_ES), 97.87% (3C_ES) and 97.47% (3 EXTRA_ES). This may be explained by the fact that except for 3A_ES, all Level 3 videos in \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Video** \\ **(Level and Language)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \begin{tabular}{c} **NER Score** \\ **(Accuracy Rate (AR)** \\ **of Subtitle Quality**) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **NER Score** \\ **(Accuracy Rate (AR)** \\ **of Subtitle Quality**) \\ \end{tabular} \\  & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Not Assessing Speaker ID** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} _Assessing Speaker ID_ \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline
1A\_EN 1 & 99.01\% & 97.9\% \\ \hline
1B\_EN & 99.56\% & 99.6\% \\ \hline
1C\_EN & 99.13\% & 99\% \\ \hline
**AR for Level 1** & **99.23\%** & **98.83\%** \\ \hline
2A\_EN & 98.83\% & 98.1\% \\ \hline
2B\_EN & 99.27\% & 99.3\% \\ \hline
2C\_EN & 99.29\% & 99.5\% \\ \hline
**AR for Level 2** & **99.13\%** & **98.80\%** \\ \hline
3A\_EN & 99.17\% & 98.8\% \\ \hline
3B\_EN & 99.32\% & 99.3\% \\ \hline
3C\_EN & 99.43\% & 98.8\% \\ \hline
3 EXTRA\_EN & 97.37\% & 95.3\% \\ \hline
**AR for Level 3** & **98.82\%** & **98.05\%** \\ \hline
**AR for all levels** & **99.03\%** & **98.56\%** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* 1A’ refers to the first video of Level 1. ‘EN’ refers to the language of the video, i.e., English. ‘AR’ stands for accuracy rate. The levels in bold are the averages of the separate videos.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: NER scores showing the accuracy rates of the English subtitles assessing the presence of speaker IDs (third column) and without assessing the presence of speaker IDs (second column). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Video** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **NER Score** \\ **(Level and Language)** \\ \end{tabular} & **MinR 1** & **StR 2** & **SR 3** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **NER Score** \\ **(Assessing ID)** \\ \end{tabular} & **MinR** & **StR** & **SR** \\ \hline
1A\_EN & 99.01\% & 79 & 8 & 0 & 97.9\% & 170 & 12 & 0 \\ \hline
1B\_EN & 99.56\% & 26 & 4 & 2 & 99.56\% & 26 & 4 & 2 \\ \hline
1C\_EN & 99.13\% & 95 & 2 & 0 & 99\% & 108 & 2 & 0 \\ \hline
2A\_EN & 98.83\% & 53 & 14 & 0 & 98.1\% & 98 & 15 & 0 \\ \hline
2B\_EN & 99.27\% & 89 & 4 & 1 & 99.27\% & 89 & 4 & 1 \\ \hline
2C\_EN & 99.29\% & 57 & 3 & 0 & 99\% & 82 & 3 & 0 \\ \hline
3A\_EN & 99.17\% & 60 & 9 & 0 & 98.8\% & 89 & 9 & 0 \\ \hline
3B\_EN & 99.32\% & 42 & 4 & 2 & 99.32\% & 42 & 4 & 2 \\ \hline
3C\_EN & 99.43\% & 59 & 4 & 0 & 98.8\% & 131 & 4 & 0 \\ \hline
3 EXTRA\_EN & 97.37\% & 199 & 33 & 2 & 95.3\% & 405 & 33 & 2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Minor recognition error. 2 Standard recognition error. 3 Serious recognition error.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Detailed NER scores showing the accuracy rates of the English subtitles assessing the presence of speaker IDs (sixth column) and without assessing the presence of speaker IDs (second column), followed each time by the error division for each video. Spanish feature quicker interactions between speakers than those included in the English videos. This, rather than specialised vocabulary and high speech rates of a single speaker, seems to be the main challenge automatic captions are struggling to overcome, along with, as will be seen below, punctuation and speaker ID.