Figure PERCOMPARE
Comparing percentages of tags for the full corpus and the
restricted subset that have single, precisely matching trees.
The Switchboard Dialog Act Corpus (SwDA) extends the Switchboard-1 Telephone Speech Corpus, Release 2, with turn/utterance-level dialog-act tags. The tags summarize syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic information about the associated turn. The SwDA project was undertaken at UC Boulder in the late 1990s.
Recommended reading:
Note: Here is updated SwDA code that is Python 2/3 compatible. It is recommended over the code below.
Code and data:
The SDA trascripts are a free download:
The files are human-readable text files with lines like this:
b B.22 utt1: Uh-huh. /
sd A.23 utt1: I work off and on just temporarily and usually find friends to babysit, /
sd A.23 utt2: {C but } I don't envy anybody who's in that <laughter> situation to find day care. /
b B.24 utt1: Yeah. /
It's worth unpacking the archive file and opening up a few of the transcripts to get a feel for what they are like.
The SwDA is not inherently linked to the Penn Treebank 3 parses of Switchboard, and it is far from straightforward to align the two resources Calhoun et al. 2010, §2.4. In addition, the SwDA is not distributed with the Switchboard's tables of metadata about the conversations and their participants. I'd like us to have easy access to all this information, so I created a version of the corpus that pools all of this information to the best of my ability:
When you unpack swda.zip, you get a directory with the same basic structure as that of swb1_dialogact_annot.tar.gz. The file swda-metadata.csv contains the transcript and caller metadata for this subset of the Switchboard.
The format for all the transcript files is the same. I describe the column values below, in the context of the Python code I wrote for us to work with this corpus.
The Python classes:
The code's Transcript objects model the individual files in the corpus. A Transcript object is built from a transcript filename and the corpus metadata file:
Transcript objects have the following attributes:
| Attribute name | Object type | Value |
|---|---|---|
| ptb_basename | str | The filename: directory/basename |
| conversation_no | int | The numerical conversation Id. |
| talk_day | datetime | with methods like month, year, ... |
| topic_description | str | short description |
| length | int | in seconds |
| prompt | str | long decription/query/instruction |
| from_caller_no | int | The numerical Id of the from (A) caller |
| from_caller_sex | str | MALE, FEMALE |
| from_caller_education | int | 0, 1, 2, 3, 9 |
| from_caller_birth_year | datetime | YYYY |
| from_caller_dialect_area | str | MIXED, NEW ENGLAND, NORTH MIDLAND, NORTHERN, NYC, SOUTH MIDLAND, SOUTHERN, UNK, WESTERN |
| to_caller_no | int | The numerical Id of the to (B) caller |
| to_caller_sex | str | MALE, FEMALE |
| to_caller_education | int | 0, 1, 2, 3, 9 |
| to_caller_birth_year | datetime | YYYY |
| to_caller_dialect_area | str | MIXED, NEW ENGLAND, NORTH MIDLAND, NORTHERN, NYC, SOUTH MIDLAND, SOUTHERN, UNK, WESTERN |
| utterances | list | A list of Utterance objects. |
The attributes permit easy access to the properties of transcripts. Continuing the above:
The utterances attribute of Transcript objects is the list of Utterance objects for that corpus, in the order in which they appear in the original transcripts.
Utterance objects have the following attributes:
| Attribute | Object type | Value |
|---|---|---|
| caller | str | A, B, @A, @B, @@A, @@B |
| caller_no | int | The caller Id. |
| caller_sex | str | MALE or FEMALE |
| caller_education | str | 0, 1, 2, 3, 9 |
| caller_birth_year | int | 4-digit year |
| caller_dialect_area | str | MIXED, NEW ENGLAND, NORTH MIDLAND, NORTHERN, NYC, SOUTH MIDLAND, SOUTHERN, UNK, WESTERN |
| transcript_index | int | line number relative to the whole transcript |
| utterance_index | int | Utterance number (can span multiple TranscriptIndex numbers) |
| subutterance_Index | int | Utterances can be broken across line. This gives the internal position. |
| tag | list | strings; see below |
| text | str | the text of the utterance |
| pos | str | the part-of-speech tagged portion of the utterance |
| trees | nltk.tree.Tree | the parse of Text; see below for discussion |
Assuming you still have your Python interpreter open and the trans instance set as before, you can continue with code like the following:
Perhaps the most noteworthy attribute is utt.trees. This is always a set of nltk.tree.Tree objects (sometimes an empty set, because only a subset of the Switchboard was parsed). For our utt instance, there is just one tree, and it properly contains the actual utterance content. In this case, the rest of the tree occurs two lines later, because speaker A interrupts:
Cautionary note: Because the trees often properly contain the utterance, they cannot be used to gather word- or phrase-level statistics unless care is taken to restrict attention to the subtrees, or fragments thereof, that represent the utterance itself. For additional discussion, see the Penn Discourse Treebank 3 Trees section below.
The main interface provided by swda.py is the CorpusReader, which allows you to iterate through the entire corpus, gathering information as you go. CorpusReader objects are built from just the root of the directory containing your csv files. (It assumes that swda-metadata.csv is in the first directory below that root.)
The two central methods for CorpusReader objects are iter_transcripts() and iter_utterances().
Here's a function that uses iter_transcripts() to gather information relating education levels and dialect areas:
The method iter_utterances() is basically an abbreviation of the following nested loop:
The following code uses iter_utterances() to drill right down to the utterances to count the raw tags:
The output is a list that is very much like the one under "Finally, for reference, here are the original 226 tags" at the Coders' Manual page. (I don't know why the counts differ slightly from the ones given there. I tried many variations — adding/removing * or @ from the tags; adding/removing a hard-to-detect nameless file in the distribution repeating sw09utt/sw_0904_2767.utt, etc., but I was never able to reproduce the counts exactly.)
It is possible to work with our SwDA CSV-based distribution using a program like Excel or R. The following code shows how to read in the CSV files and work with them a bit in R:
We can also read in the metadata and relate an utterance to it via the conversation_no value:
In principle, this could be every bit as useful as the Python classes. Indeed, there are advantages to working with data in tabular/database format, as opposed to constantly looping through all the files. However, if you take this route, you'll have to write your own methods for dealing with the special values for trees, tags, dates, and so forth. I think Python is ultimately a better tool for grappling with the diverse information in the SwDA.
I now briefly review the special annotations of this subset of the Switchboard: the act tags, the POS annotations, and the parsetrees.
There are over 200 tags in the corpus. The Coders' Manual defines a system for collapsing them down to 44 tags. (They say 42; I am not sure what they do with 'x', and their table has 43 rows, so it might be that 42 is just a minor miscount.)
The Utterance object method damsl_act_tag() converts the original tags to this 44 member subset:
The tags are the main addition to the corpus. Here is the table of training-set stats from the Coders' Manual extended with a column giving the total counts for the entire corpus, using damsl_act_tag().
Jupiter Ascending (2015) is a space opera directed by the Wachowskis that follows Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis), a house cleaner who discovers she is the genetic reincarnation of galactic royalty. The film explores themes of consumerism and destiny as she teams up with Caine Wise (Channing Tatum), a genetically engineered warrior, to protect Earth from a ruthless intergalactic dynasty [5.7, 5.12]. Film Overview & Availability
While the film is widely available on global streaming platforms like Stan and for purchase on Amazon, finding a verified Hindi dubbed version can be difficult through official retail channels.
Language Discrepancy: Many official physical releases in India, such as certain Blu-ray editions found on Amazon India, have been noted by customers to only include English audio, despite being sold in the region.
Alternative Formats: "Dual Audio" versions (containing both Hindi and English tracks) are often cited in unofficial listings on social media platforms or specialized streaming sites like TvSeans. Plot Summary
The story begins with a Russian immigrant family where Jupiter's father is killed before her birth. Fast-forward 22 years, Jupiter lives a mundane life in Chicago until Caine Wise rescues her from an assassination attempt by extraterrestrial "Keepers" [5.12, 5.13]. She learns that Earth is just one of many "estates" owned by the Abrasax family, who "harvest" planets to create a youth serum for the elite [5.7, 5.21]. Reception and Awards
The film received mixed to negative reviews for its complex plot but was praised for its ambitious visual effects [5.4, 5.21].
Critical Consensus: Reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes described it as a blend of "teen girl romance fantasy" and heavy SFX action.
Accolades: According to Wikipedia, the film received a "Worst Picture" nomination at the Golden Raspberry Awards, though Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis received nominations at the Kids' Choice and Teen Choice Awards. Jupiter Ascending (2015) (4K UHD + Blu-ray) (2-Disc) (Uncut jupiter ascending 2015 hindi dubbed movie 720p verified
Searching for a "verified" 720p Hindi dubbed version of Jupiter Ascending
(2015) usually leads to unofficial or pirated download sites, which often carry security risks like malware.
For a safe and high-quality viewing experience, you can find the movie on official streaming and rental platforms. Where to Watch Officially
Streaming: You can stream Jupiter Ascending on JioHotstar and VI movies and tv in India.
Rent or Buy: High-definition (HD) versions are available for rent or purchase on: Apple TV Store (Buy/Rent) Amazon Video (Rent) Movies Anywhere Movie Details
Plot: A young housekeeper (Mila Kunis) discovers she is interstellar royalty and must fight to protect Earth with the help of a genetically engineered hunter (Channing Tatum).
Audio: Official releases often include Dual Audio (Hindi + English) options, depending on your region and the specific platform's licensing. Watch Jupiter Ascending | Netflix Jupiter Ascending (2015) is a space opera directed
Jupiter Ascending (2015) is a high-concept science fiction space opera from the directors of the Matrix Trilogy. The film is widely available in Hindi dubbed versions for Indian audiences and follows the story of Jupiter Jones, an ordinary cleaning woman who discovers she is the genetic recurrence of intergalactic royalty. Movie Plot & Highlights Film Review: Jupiter Ascending (2015) - Adam Mohrbacher
Jupiter Ascending (2015) : Plot, Cast, and Hindi Dubbing Availability Jupiter Ascending
, directed by the Wachowskis, is an ambitious 2015 science-fiction space opera that takes audiences from the streets of Chicago to the far reaches of the galaxy. While the film has gained a cult following for its visual effects, many viewers in India have specific questions about its language availability and official streaming options. Movie Overview & Plot
The story follows Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis), a young woman living a humble life as a house cleaner in Chicago. Her life changes forever when Caine Wise (Channing Tatum), a genetically engineered ex-military hunter, arrives to protect her from intergalactic assassins.
The Revelation: Jupiter discovers her genetic signature marks her as the reincarnation of an ancient alien matriarch, making her the rightful owner of Earth.
The Conflict: She is thrust into a power struggle between the three Abrasax siblings—Balem, Kalique, and Titus—who view Earth as a "crop" to be harvested for a life-extending serum.
The Stakes: Jupiter must navigate royal politics and survive high-stakes space battles to save humanity from being harvested. Cast & Crew Jupiter Ascending (2015) - IMDb The Sweet Spot: Why "720p Verified" is the
Jupiter Ascending (2015) Hindi Dubbed: A Galactic Epic in 720p
The Jupiter Ascending (2015) movie is a high-concept science fiction space opera directed by The Wachowskis (Lana and Lilly Wachowski). For Hindi-speaking audiences, the Hindi dubbed version allows fans to experience the film's complex intergalactic politics and stunning visuals in their native language. Movie Overview & Cast
The film stars Mila Kunis as Jupiter Jones, an ordinary cleaning woman who discovers she is the genetic heir to a vast intergalactic royalty. She is aided by Channing Tatum, who plays Caine Wise, a genetically engineered ex-military hunter with canine DNA. Primary Cast: Mila Kunis as Jupiter Jones Channing Tatum as Caine Wise Eddie Redmayne as Balem Abrasax (the primary antagonist) Sean Bean as Stinger Apini Douglas Booth as Titus Abrasax Tuppence Middleton as Kalique Abrasax Storyline: From Earth to the Stars Full cast & crew - Jupiter Ascending (2015) - IMDb
Cast * Mila Kunis. Mila Kunis. Jupiter Jones. * Channing Tatum. Channing Tatum. Caine Wise. * Sean Bean. Sean Bean. Stinger Apini. Jupiter Ascending (2015) - IMDb
A genetically engineered soldier informs a young woman of her extraordinary destiny. * Directors. Lana Wachowski. Lilly Wachowski.
When searching for Jupiter Ascending 2015 Hindi Dubbed Movie 720p Verified, the technical specifications aren't just jargon; they are quality promises.
In the vast universe of sci-fi cinema, few films have sparked as much debate and cult fascination as the Wachowskis' 2014 space opera, Jupiter Ascending. While the film had a mixed theatrical run in English, it has found a dedicated second life online, particularly among Indian audiences searching for the Jupiter Ascending 2015 Hindi Dubbed Movie 720p Verified download. This article dives deep into why this film is trending, what “verified” means for your safety, and everything you need to know before watching.
Most of the Coders' Manual is devoted to explaining how to make decisions about the tags. This is extremely valuable information if you decide to study the tags for scientific purposes, because the instructions provide insights into what the tags mean and how the annotators made decisions.
Utterance objects have methods for accessing the POS-tagged version of the utterance as a plain string, and as a list of (string, tag) tuples. In addition, optional parameters to the methods allow you to regularize the words and tags in various ways:
utt.pos() gives you the raw string of the POS version:
You can use utt.text_words() to break the raw text on whitespace. More interesting is utt.pos_words(), which does the same for the POS-tagged version, which is often simpler, in that it lacks disfluency markers and information about the nature of the turn.
The option wn_lemmatize=True runs the WordNet lemmatizer:
pos_lemmas() has the same options as pos_words() but it returns the (string, tag) tuples:
As far as I can tell, the alignment between the raw text and the POS tags is extremely reliable, with differences largely concerning elements that were not tagged (mostly disfluency markers and non-verbal elements).
Not all utterances have trees; only a subset of the Switchboard is fully parsed. Here's a quick count of the utterances with parsetrees:
There are 221616 utterances in all, so about 53% have trees.
The relationship between the utterances/POS and the trees is highly frought. There is no simple mapping from the original release of the corpus, or the POS version, to the trees. For the parsing, some utterances were merged together into single trees, others were split across trees, and the basic numbering was changed, often dramatically. I myself did the text–POS–tree alignments automatically (not by hand!) using a wide range of heuristic matching techniques. There are definitely lingering misalignments. (If you notice any, please send me the transcript and utterance number.)
In the example used just above, the utterance and its POS match the tree, with the non-matching material being just trace markers and disfluency tags:
Sometimes the utterance corresponds to a subtree of a given tree. In that case, utt.trees includes the entire tree, and it is important to restrict attention to the utterance's substructure when thinking about (counting elements of) the tree(s):
Here, one can imagine pulling out (FRAG (IN if) (RB not) (ADJP (JJR more))) to work with it separately from its containing tree. NLTK tree libraries have a subtrees() method that makes this easy:
The most challenging situation is where the utterance overlaps two trees, but does not correspond to either of them, or even to identifiable subtrees of them:
Here, there is no unique node that dominates right, ?, and the disfluency marker but excludes the rest of the utterance
Of course, the easiest tree structures to deal with are those that correspond exactly to the utterance itself. The Utterance method tree_is_perfect_match() allows you to pick out just those situations. It does this by heuristically matching the raw-text terminals with the leaves of the tree structure. The following function counts the number of such utterances:
The output of the above is 96370 (0.829738688708 percent). This suggests that, when studying the trees, we can limit attention to matching-tree subset. However, we should first look to make sure that the overall distribution of tags is the same for this subset; it is conceivable that a specific tag never gets its own tree and thus would appear less in this subset.
Figure PERCOMPARE compares the percentages in Table DAMSL with the percentages from the restricted subset that that have full-tree matches. The distributions looks largely the same, suggesting that work involving parsetrees can limit attention to the matching-tree subset. However, if an analysis focuses on a specific subset of the tags, then more careful comparison is advised. (For example, x (non-verbal) and ^g (tag-questions) seem to be quite different from this perspective: non-verbal utterances are typically not parsed at all, and tag-questions are often treated as their own dialogue act but merged with the preceding tree when parsed.)
exercise ROOTS, exercise POS, exercise TAGS
SAMPLE Pick a transcript at random and study it a bit, to get a sense for what the data are like. Some things you might informally assess:
META The following code skeleton loops through the transcripts, creating an opportunity to count pieces of meta-data at that level. Complete the code by counting two different pieces of meta-data. Submit both the code and its output as your answer.
Advanced extension: allow the user to supply a Transcript attribute as the argument to the function, and then use that attribute inside the loop, to compile its cont distribution.
ROOTS The following skeletal code loops through the utterances, creating an opportunity to counts utterance-level information.
POSThis question compares heavily edited newspaper text with naturalistic dialogue by looking at the distribution of POS tags in two such resources.
TAGS How are tag questions parsed? Choose one of the following two methods for addressing this:
Home
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.