MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2103759455

AUTOMATIC TERM EXTRACTION AND DOCUMENT SIMILARITY IN SPECIAL TEXT CORPORA

2003· article· en· W2103759455 sur OpenAlex
Evangelos Milios, Yuke Zhang, Lei Dong

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueNatural Language Processing Techniques
Établissements canadiensDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComputer scienceTerm (time)Natural language processingCollocation (remote sensing)Artificial intelligenceSimilarity (geometry)Representation (politics)Information retrievalWord (group theory)Lexical analysisText corpusVocabularyVector space modelTerminologyComputational linguisticsLinguisticsMachine learning
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This paper conflrms that the performance of a state-of-the-art automatic term extraction method on a computer science corpus is similar to previously published performance data on a medical corpus. The extracted terms are then used to estimate the similarity of papers in the computer science corpus using the standard Vector Space Model. The precision of retrieval using a term-based representation is compared with that of a word-based representation, and a link-based similarity metric based on the overlap of the local neighborhoods of the papers in the citation graph. The term-based approach ofiers comparable performance to the word-based approach, but potentially with a much smaller vocabulary size. Automatic term extraction in special text corpora is an interesting problem, which is becoming relevant as literature in speciflc scientiflc flelds such as medicine, biology and computer science explodes making it di‐cult to track the evolving terminology in the flelds [Kageura and Umino1996]. Early approaches to automatic term extraction were focused on information-theoretic approaches based on mutual information in detecting collocations [Manning and Schuetze1999]. Collocations are expressions that are composed of two or more words, the meaning of which is not easy to guess from the meanings of the component words. There are nuances in the detection of collocation that require linguistic criteria to resolve [Justeson and Katz1995]. Shallow linguistic criteria are based on acceptable sequences of part-of-speech tags. Part-of-speech tagging can be performed automatically [Brill1992]. A key problem is that of nesting, where subsets of consecutive words of terms consisting of multiple words would satisfy the statistical criteria for \termhood, but they would not be called terms. In the flrst part of this paper, we describe experiments with a state-of-the-art method, C-value/NC-value [Frantzi et al.2000], which combines statistical and linguistic information for automatic term extraction. We applied it to a special text corpus of computer science articles, which is of a difierent nature from the medical corpus on which the method was originally tested. We conflrmed that the performance of the method is equally good on our corpus, and we identifled some adjustments that the method required. In the second part of this paper, we use the terms extracted to estimate the similarity between two documents. We evaluate the quality of the similarity estimation based on terms in an information retrieval context. It is broadly believed that it is di‐cult to improve upon the bag-of-words representation as far as retrieval performance is concerned by using more sophisticated features or shallow linguistic techniques. Although retrieval based on terms did not show signiflcant improvement over a bag-of-words representation, our long-term objective is to cluster special text corpora into subareas, and automatically generate lexical ontologies from the clusters [Ayad and Kamel2002]. Terms in this context are of interest in themselves, and not purely as a vehicle to information retrieval. We are, furthermore, interested in similarity criteria taking into account proximity of terms [Koubarakis2001], for which again it is essential to work with terms, not words. The use of terms instead of words may also be preferable in information dissemination, where given a database of proflles (of c

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,570
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,274

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,279
Écart entre enseignants0,268 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

En bref

Citations55
Publié2003
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetNatural Language Processing TechniquesTravaux en français237 207