Group items tagged

How It Works SpeakerText combines artificial and human intelligence to offer low-cost, high-quality video transcription. Sign up for an account Import your video library (we currently support Ooyala, Brightcove, YouTube, Vimeo, SoundCloud, Wistia and Blip.tv), or add your videos one-by-one. Choose which videos you want to transcribe. Check out and pay. SpeakerText sends you an email when your transcripts are finished. Download your transcripts as text or XML files from SpeakerText OR install CaptionBox and download your transcripts as HTML code to place on your website. Guarantee We guarantee that your transcripts will get back to you in less than 72 hours and be of the highest quality. Give it a try now! http://speakertext.com

This is the first I've heard of a tool like this doing a creditable job. I suspect there is some machine transcription going on, but then the first pass is sent to India or Jamaica to be polished. Here's an example of how the NYTimes used this tool: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/20/us/politics/20090120_INAUGURAL_ANALYSIS.html

"ReConstitution 2012, a fun experiment by Sosolimited, processes transcripts from the presidential debates, and recreates them with animated words and charts. Part data visualization, part experimental typography, ReConstitution 2012 is a live web app linked to the US Presidential Debates. During and after the three debates, language used by the candidates generates a live graphical map of the events. Algorithms track the psychological states of Romney and Obama and compare them to past candidates. The app allows the user to get beyond the punditry and discover the hidden meaning in the words chosen by the candidates. As you let the transcript run, numbers followed by their units (like "18 months") flash on the screen, and trigger words for emotions like positivity, negativity, and rage are highlighted yellow, blue, and red, respectively. You can also see the classifications in graph form. There are a handful of less straightforward text classifications for truthy and suicidal, which are based on linguistic studies, which in turn are based on word frequencies. These estimates are more fuzzy. So, as the creators suggest, it's best not to interpret the project as an analytical tool, and more of a fun way to look back at the debate, which it is. It's pretty fun to watch. Here's a short video from Sosolimited for more on how the application works: "

Visualizing the words used in the 2011-2012 Republican Primary debates. The method: We collected transcripts from the American Presidency Project at UCSB, categorized them by hand, then ranked lemmatized word-phrases (or n-grams) by their frequency of use. Word-phrases can be made of up to five words. Our ranking agorithm accounts for things such as exclusive word-phrases - meaning, it won't count "United States" twice if it's used in a higher n-gram such as "President of the United States." While still in beta, the mini-app is responsive and easy to use. The next challenge, I think, is to really show what everyone talked about. For example, click on education and you see Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick Perry brought those up. Then roll over the names to see the words each candidate used related to that topic. You get some sense of content, but it's still hard to decipher what each actually said about education.