In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and you have to write an answerable question based on the context. Your questions can be extractive, abstractive, or yes-no questions.

Q: Figure FIGREF23 shows the proposed ontology, which, in our evaluation procedure, was populated with 3121 events entries from 51 documents.

A: How is the effectiveness of this pipeline approach evaluated?
****
Q: To test if the learned representations can separate phonetic categories, we use a minimal pair ABX discrimination task BIBREF19 , BIBREF20 . For the within-speaker task, all the phones triplets belong to the same speaker (e.g. $x$3 ) Finally the scores for every pair of central phones are averaged and subtracted from 1 to yield the reported within-talker ABX error rate. For the across-speaker task, $x$4 and $x$5 belong to the same speaker, and $x$6 to a different one (e.g. $x$7 ). The scores for a given minimal pair are first averaged across all of the pairs of speakers for which this contrast can be made. As above, the resulting scores are averaged over all contexts over all pairs of central phones and converted to an error rate.

A: What is the metric that is measures in this paper?
****
Q: We report the experimental results for our two tasks in terms of the correct classification rate (CCR). For sentiment analysis, we have a three-class problem (positive, negative, and neutral), where the classes are mutually exclusive. The CCR, averaged for a set of tweets, is defined to be the number of correctly-predicted sentiments over the number of groundtruth sentiments in these tweets. For NER, we consider that each tweet may reference up to four candidates, i.e., targeted entities. The CCR, averaged for a set of tweets, is the number of correctly predicted entities (candidates) over the number of groundtruth entities (candidates) in this set.

A:
What measures are used for evaluation?
****