In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and a question separated with a 
. You have to answer the question based on the context.
--------
Question: irremediable annotation discrepancies Some shortcomings of recall come from irremediable annotation discrepancies. Largely, we are hamstrung by differences in choice of attributes to annotate. When one resource marks gender and the other marks case, we can't infer the gender of the word purely from its surface form. The resources themselves would need updating to encode the relevant morphosyntactic information. Some languages had a very low number of overlapping forms, and no tag matches or near-matches between them: Arabic, Hindi, Lithuanian, Persian, and Russian. A full list of observed, irremediable discrepancies is presented alongside the codebase. We were able to find specific instances of incorrectly applied UniMorph annotation, as well as specific instances of cross-lingual inconsistency in both resources.  
 Question: What are the main sources of recall errors in the mapping?

Answer: irremediable annotation discrepancies differences in choice of attributes to annotate The resources themselves would need updating to encode the relevant morphosyntactic information. Some languages had a very low number of overlapping forms, and no tag matches or near-matches between them the two annotations encode distinct information incorrectly applied UniMorph annotation cross-lingual inconsistency in both resources


Question: 45 clinically interpretable features per admission were extracted as inputs to the readmission risk classifier. These features can be grouped into three categories (See Table TABREF5 for complete list of features):

Sociodemographics: gender, age, marital status, etc.

Past medical history: number of previous admissions, history of suicidality, average length of stay (up until that admission), etc.

Information from the current admission: length of stay (LOS), suicidal risk, number and length of notes, time of discharge, evaluation scores, etc.

The Current Admission feature group has the most number of features, with 29 features included in this group alone. These features can be further stratified into two groups: `structured' clinical features and `unstructured' clinical features.

Feature Extraction ::: Structured Features
Structure features are features that were identified on the EHR using regular expression matching and include rating scores that have been reported in the psychiatric literature as correlated with increased readmission risk, such as Global Assessment of Functioning, Insight and Compliance:

Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): The psychosocial functioning of the patient ranging from 100 (extremely high functioning) to 1 (severely impaired) BIBREF13.

Insight: The degree to which the patient recognizes and accepts his/her illness (either Good, Fair or Poor).

Compliance: The ability of the patient to comply with medication and to follow medical advice (either Yes, Partial, or None).

These features are widely-used in clinical practice and evaluate the general state and prognosis of the patient during the patient's evaluation.

Feature Extraction ::: Unstructured Features
Unstructured features aim to capture the state of the patient in relation to seven risk factor domains (Appearance, Thought Process, Thought Content, Interpersonal, Substance Use, Occupation, and Mood) from the free-text narratives on the EHR. These seven domains have been identified as associated with readmission risk in prior work BIBREF14.

These unstructured features include: 1) the relative number of sentences in the admission notes that involve each risk factor domain (out of total number of sentences within the admission) and 2) clinical sentiment scores for each of these risk factor domains, i.e. sentiment scores that evaluate the patient’s psychosocial functioning level (positive, negative, or neutral) with respect to each of these risk factor domain. 
 Question: What features are used?

Answer: Sociodemographics: gender, age, marital status, etc. Past medical history: number of previous admissions, history of suicidality, average length of stay (up until that admission), etc. Information from the current admission: length of stay (LOS), suicidal risk, number and length of notes, time of discharge, evaluation scores, etc.


Question:  BIBREF3 also use bilingual crowd workers, but the studies supporting the use of crowdsourcing for MT evaluation were performed with older MT systems, and their findings may not carry over to the evaluation of contemporary higher-quality neural machine translation (NMT) systems. In addition, the MT developers to which crowd workers were compared are usually not professional translators.  We hypothesise that an evaluation of sentences in isolation, as applied by BIBREF3, precludes raters from detecting translation errors that become apparent only when inter-sentential context is available, and that they will judge MT quality less favourably when evaluating full documents. BIBREF3 used all source texts of the WMT 2017 Chinese–English test set for their experiments, of which only half were originally written in Chinese;  
 Question: What was the weakness in Hassan et al's evaluation design?

Answer:
MT developers to which crowd workers were compared are usually not professional translators, evaluation of sentences in isolation prevents raters from detecting translation errors, used not originally written Chinese test set