Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Lapshinova-Koltunski, E."
  1. Teich, E.; Degaetano-Ortlieb, S.; Fankhauser, P.; Kermes, H.; Lapshinova-Koltunski, E.: ¬The linguistic construal of disciplinarity : a data-mining approach using register features (2016) 0.01
    0.0065539777 = product of:
      0.039323866 = sum of:
        0.039323866 = weight(_text_:computer in 3015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039323866 = score(doc=3015,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 3015, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3015)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    We analyze the linguistic evolution of selected scientific disciplines over a 30-year time span (1970s to 2000s). Our focus is on four highly specialized disciplines at the boundaries of computer science that emerged during that time: computational linguistics, bioinformatics, digital construction, and microelectronics. Our analysis is driven by the question whether these disciplines develop a distinctive language use-both individually and collectively-over the given time period. The data set is the English Scientific Text Corpus (scitex), which includes texts from the 1970s/1980s and early 2000s. Our theoretical basis is register theory. In terms of methods, we combine corpus-based methods of feature extraction (various aggregated features [part-of-speech based], n-grams, lexico-grammatical patterns) and automatic text classification. The results of our research are directly relevant to the study of linguistic variation and languages for specific purposes (LSP) and have implications for various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, for example, authorship attribution, text mining, or training NLP tools.
  2. Jiang, X.; Sun, X.; Yang, Z.; Zhuge, H.; Lapshinova-Koltunski, E.; Yao, J.: Exploiting heterogeneous scientific literature networks to combat ranking bias : evidence from the computational linguistics area (2016) 0.01
    0.005461648 = product of:
      0.03276989 = sum of:
        0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03276989 = score(doc=3017,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    It is important to help researchers find valuable papers from a large literature collection. To this end, many graph-based ranking algorithms have been proposed. However, most of these algorithms suffer from the problem of ranking bias. Ranking bias hurts the usefulness of a ranking algorithm because it returns a ranking list with an undesirable time distribution. This paper is a focused study on how to alleviate ranking bias by leveraging the heterogeneous network structure of the literature collection. We propose a new graph-based ranking algorithm, MutualRank, that integrates mutual reinforcement relationships among networks of papers, researchers, and venues to achieve a more synthetic, accurate, and less-biased ranking than previous methods. MutualRank provides a unified model that involves both intra- and inter-network information for ranking papers, researchers, and venues simultaneously. We use the ACL Anthology Network as the benchmark data set and construct the gold standard from computer linguistics course websites of well-known universities and two well-known textbooks. The experimental results show that MutualRank greatly outperforms the state-of-the-art competitors, including PageRank, HITS, CoRank, Future Rank, and P-Rank, in ranking papers in both improving ranking effectiveness and alleviating ranking bias. Rankings of researchers and venues by MutualRank are also quite reasonable.