updated paper

paper/paper.md

@@ -193,3 +193,37 @@ enviromental:
 - common codebase lead to less duplication of dataset and reduces storage required
 - continual ci running on large datasets could be a concern. Currently out tests use a total of XXX Co2-eq (estimated using codecarbon). however we have already seen people using training [@fineweb] and evaluating LLMs to appriximate dataset quality, such workflows could quickly incrase the co2 consumption.
 
+
+
+
+
+## Aditional content
+
+Comparison table
+
+
+|                        | Size | Sufficient Documentation | Data availability | Legal Status    | Quality        |
+| ---------------------- | ---- | ------------------------ | ----------------- | --------------- | -------------- |
+| Danish Dynaword (Ours) | 3.5B | Replicable^              | Open Access       | Openly Licensed | Mixed (high)   |
+| Danish Gigaword*       |      | Documentary              | Open Access       | Openly Licensed | Mixed (high)   |
+| Common Corpus (dan)    |      | Replicable               | Open Access       | Openly Licensed | OCR (low)      |
+| Fineweb (dan)          |      | Replicable               | Open Access       |                 | Mixed (medium) |
+
+
+
+<!-- 
+Could we create an interesting figure of this Marton? See figure 1
+better notion of quality? Potentially a bit more objective?
+
+-->
+
+*The Danish gigaword subsection included in Danish Dynaword. I.e. the subsection that is permissibly licensed.
+^Some datasets are derived from Danish Gigaword, some of these subsection are not (currently) replicable
+
+This follows the scheme from figure 1 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.08365)
+
+Add comparison number of tokens comparison:
+Common Corpus (DA) - 
+Gigaword (DA) - Open
+M-Fineweb (DA) - 
+ -->