
Systems for postcorrection of OCR-results can be fine tuned and adapted to new recognition tasks in many respects. One issue is the selection and adaption of a suitable background dictionary. Another issue is the choice of a correction model, which includes, among other decisions, the selection of an appropriate distance measure for strings and the choice of a scoring function for ranking distinct correction alternatives. When combining the results obtained from distinct OCR engines, further parameters have to be fixed. Due to all these degrees of freedom, adaption and fine tuning of systems for lexical postcorrection is a difficult process. Here we describe a visual and interactive tool that semi-automates the generation of ground truth data, partially automates adjustment of parameters, yields active support for error analysis and thus helps to find correction strategies that lead to high accuracy with realistic effort.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 7 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
