English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Unfortunately, the official English (sub)task results reported in theNTCIR-14 WWW-2, NTCIR-15 WWW-3, and NTCIR-16 WWW-4 overview papers areincorrect due to noise in the official qrels files; this paper reports resultsbased on the corrected qrels files. The noise is due to a fatal bug in thebackend of our relevance assessment interface. More specifically, at WWW-2,WWW-3, and WWW-4, two versions of pool files were created for each Englishtopic: a PRI ("prioritised") file, which uses the NTCIRPOOL script toprioritise likely relevant documents, and a RND ("randomised") file, whichrandomises the pooled documents. This was done for the purpose of studying theeffect of document ordering for relevance assessors. However, the programmerwho wrote the interface backend assumed that a combination of a topic ID and adocument rank in the pool file uniquely determines a document ID; this isobviously incorrect as we have two versions of pool files. The outcome is thatall the PRI-based relevance labels for the WWW-2 test collection are incorrect(while all the RND-based relevance labels are correct), and all the RND-basedrelevance labels for the WWW-3 and WWW-4 test collections are incorrect (whileall the PRI-based relevance labels are correct). This bug was finallydiscovered at the NTCIR-16 WWW-4 task when the first seven authors of thispaper served as Gold assessors (i.e., topic creators who define what isrelevant) and closely examined the disagreements with Bronze assessors (i.e.,non-topic-creators; non-experts). We would like to apologise to the WWWparticipants and the NTCIR chairs for the inconvenience and confusion causeddue to this bug.

Corrected Evaluation Results of the NTCIR WWW-2, WWW-3, and WWW-4 English Subtasks