Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers) 2014
DOI: 10.3115/v1/p14-2008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improving Citation Polarity Classification with Product Reviews

Abstract: Recent work classifying citations in scientific literature has shown that it is possible to improve classification results with extensive feature engineering. While this result confirms that citation classification is feasible, there are two drawbacks to this approach: (i) it requires a large annotated corpus for supervised classification, which in the case of scientific literature is quite expensive; and (ii) feature engineering that is too specific to one area of scientific literature may not be portable to … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, this is not consistent across all studies. For example, Jochim and Schütze ( 2014 ) find that combining marginalized stacked denoising autoencoders (mSDA) (Chen et al, 2012 ) and frustratingly easy domain adaptation (FEDA) (Daumé III, 2007 ) performs worse than individual methods in preliminary experiments on citation polarity classification. Both methods are feature-centric, though mSDA is a generalization method (FG) while FEDA is an augmentation method (FA).…”
Section: Which Methodological Gaps Have Greatest Negative Impact On L...mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, this is not consistent across all studies. For example, Jochim and Schütze ( 2014 ) find that combining marginalized stacked denoising autoencoders (mSDA) (Chen et al, 2012 ) and frustratingly easy domain adaptation (FEDA) (Daumé III, 2007 ) performs worse than individual methods in preliminary experiments on citation polarity classification. Both methods are feature-centric, though mSDA is a generalization method (FG) while FEDA is an augmentation method (FA).…”
Section: Which Methodological Gaps Have Greatest Negative Impact On L...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, mSDA is an unlabeled adaptation method while FEDA is a labeled adaptation method. Owing to negative results, Jochim and Schütze ( 2014 ) do not experiment further to find a combination that might have worked. Wright and Augenstein ( 2020 ) show that combining adversarial domain adaptation (ADA) (Ganin and Lempitsky, 2015 ) with pretraining does not improve performance, but combining mixture of experts (MoE) with pretraining does.…”
Section: Which Methodological Gaps Have Greatest Negative Impact On L...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Jochim and Schütze [11] rst applied a deep learning model to the citation polarity classi cation. In a domain-adaption se ing, they trained a marginalized stacked denoising autoencoders (mSDA) on product reviews and used it to predict the polarity of citations.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, [1] extracted several features for citation purpose and polarity classification, such as reference count, contrary expression and dependency relations. Jochim et al tried to improve the result by using unigram and bigram features [2]. [3] used word level features, contextual polarity features, and sentence structure based features to detect sentiment citations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%