Evaluating spoken dialogue systems according to de-facto standards: a case study
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The user questionnaire was based on ITU-T recommendation P.851 as implemented in Möller et al. (2007).
“The user questionnaire was based on the ITU-T recommendation P.851 (ITU-T Rec. P.851, 2003) as implemented in (Möller et al., 2007)”
From Reducing working memory load in spoken dialogue systems (2009) · cites this paper as Möller et al., 2007
Our six-factor structure compares well with the eight factors found by Möller et al. (2007).
“Our six-factor structure compares well with the eight factors found by Möller et al. (2007), which are summarised in Fig. 4.”
From Reducing working memory load in spoken dialogue systems (2009) · cites this paper as Möller et al. (2007)
The close match between our factor structure and the previously published factor analysis of Möller et al. (2007) suggests that the differences in age and cognitive ability between our participants did not overly affect the factor structure we obtained.
“The close match between our factor structure and the previously published factor analysis of Möller et al. (2007) also suggests that the differences in age and cognitive ability between our participants did not overly affect the factor structure we obtained.”
From Reducing working memory load in spoken dialogue systems (2009) · cites this paper as Möller et al. (2007)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 69
- Authors
- Möller, S., Smeele, P., Boland, H., & Krebber, J.
- Affiliations
- Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
- Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (NL)
- Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Möller, Sebastian
- ORCID
- Möller, Sebastian
- Venue
- Computer Speech & Language
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 26-53
- ISSN
- 0885-2308 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2017445028
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 5.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Computer Speech & Language (publishedVersion)
- TNO Repository (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
- Keywords
- spoken dialogue systems, evaluation standards, subjective quality assessment, SASSI, paradise, prediction model, usability, acceptability, reliability and validity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
