instruction:
In this task, you are given a paper review. Based on the review, your job is to identify language and generate "en" if the review is in English or generate "es" if the review is in Spanish. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
question:
This paper introduces UCCA as a target representation for semantic parsing and also describes a quite successful transition-based parser for inference into that representation. I liked this paper a lot. I believe there is a lot of value simply in the introduction of UCCA (not new, but I believe relatively new to this community), which has the potential to spark new thinking about semantic representations of text. I also think the model was well thought out. While the model itself was fairly derivative of existing transition-based schemes, the extensions the authors introduced to make the model applicable in this domain were reasonable and well-explained, at what I believe to be an appropriate level of detail.  The empirical evaluation was pretty convincing -- the results were good, as compared to several credible baselines, and the authors demonstrated this performance in multiple domains. My biggest complaint about this paper is the lack of multilingual evaluation, especially given that the formalism being experimented with is exactly one that is supposed to be fairly universal. I'm reasonably sure multilingual UCCA corpora exist (in fact, I think the "20k leagues" corpus used in this paper is one such), so it would be good to see results in a language other than English.  One minor point: in section 6, the authors refer to their model as "grammarless", which strikes me as not quite correct. It's true that the UCCA representation isn't derived from linguistic notions of syntax, but it still defines a way to construct a compositional abstract symbolic representation of text, which to me, is precisely a grammar. (This is clearly a quibble, and I don't know why it irked me enough that I feel compelled to address it, but it did.)  Edited to add: Thanks to the authors for their response.
answer:
en


question:
El artículo presenta en detalle el proceso realizado para la digitalización del archivo histórico de la parroquia San Pedro de Coquimbo. Se entregan los antecedentes previos, el análisis realizado y se explica la solución implementada.  Los autores muestran claramente los pasos realizados para implementar la solución propuesta.  Si bien la solución propuesta es correcta para el problema planteado, no se destaca un aporte significativo respecto a previas soluciones tecnológicas asociadas a digitalización de documentos.  El artículo no muestra resultados o evaluaciones realizadas al sistema implementado.
answer:
es


question:
This paper makes three main methodological contributions:  - definition of Neural Feature (NF) as the pixel average of the top N images that highly activation a neuron  - ranking of neurons based on color selectivity  - ranking of neurons based on class selectivity  The main weaknesses of the paper are that none of the methodological contributions are very significant, and no singularly significant result arises from the application of the methods.  However, the main strengths of the paper are its assortment of moderately-sized interesting conclusions about the basic behavior of neural nets. For example, a few are:  - “Indexing on class selectivity neurons we found highly class selective neurons like digital-clock at conv2, cardoon at conv3 and ladybug at conv5, much before the fully connected layers.” As far as I know, this had not been previously reported.  - Color selective neurons are found even in higher layers. (25% color selectivity in conv5)  - “our main color axis emerge (black-white, blue-yellow, orange-cyan and cyan- magenta). Curiously, these two observations correlate with evidences in the human visual system (Shapley & Hawken (2011)).” Great observation!  Overall, I’d recommend the paper be accepted, because although it’s difficult to predict at this time, there’s a fair chance that one of the “smaller conclusions” would turn out to be important in hindsight a few years hence.   Other small comments:  - The cite for “Learning to generate chairs…” is wrong (first two authors combined resulting in a confusing cite)   - What exactly is the Color Selectivity Index computing? The Opponent Color Space isn’t well defined and it wasn’t previously familiar to me. Intuitively it seems to be selecting for units that respond to a constant color, but the highest color selectivity NF in Fig 5 i for a unit with two colors, not one. Finally, the very last unit (lowest color selectivity) is almost the same edge pattern, but with white -> black instead of blue -> orange. Why are these considered to be so drastically different? This should probably be more clearly described.   - For the sake of argument, imagine a mushroom sensitive neuron in conv5 that fires highly for mushrooms of *any* color but not for anything else. If the dataset contains only red-capped mushrooms, would the color selectivity index for this neuron be high or low? If it is high, it’s somewhat misleading because the unit itself actually isn’t color selective; the dataset just happens only to have red mushrooms in it. (It’s a subtle point but worth considering and probably discussing in the paper)
answer:

en