1998
DOI: 10.1080/01638539809545029
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
343
1
16

Year Published

2003
2003
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 540 publications
(362 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
2
343
1
16
Order By: Relevance
“…To obtain a rough estimate of readability for the black hole text, we used the sentence-to-sentence comparison feature on the Latent Semantic Analysis website (http://lsa.colorado.edu/). The average sentence-to-sentence cosine for a translated version of the black hole text was .39, indicating that the text was highly coherent (Foltz et al 1998). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To obtain a rough estimate of readability for the black hole text, we used the sentence-to-sentence comparison feature on the Latent Semantic Analysis website (http://lsa.colorado.edu/). The average sentence-to-sentence cosine for a translated version of the black hole text was .39, indicating that the text was highly coherent (Foltz et al 1998). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mitchell and Lapata in [9] follow Foltz [21] and assume that the contribution of syntactic structure can be ignored, while the meaning of a phrase is simply the commutative sum of the meanings of its constituent words. More formally, [9] defines the composition p • = u • v of vectors u and v through an additive class of composition functions expressed by:…”
Section: Distributional Compositional Semantic Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[17,18,21] Most importantly, the temporal order of words in a sentence represents the differences in meaning as a result of differences in word order or syntactic structure. [18] Early semantic space modeling approaches (e.g., Foltz's [22] ) were insensitive to word ordering and thus could not capture meaning differences that are modulated by differences in syntactic structure. Consider, for example, the following two sentences from Landauer and Dumais [23] that happen to use the same vocabulary but are still semantically unrelated:…”
Section: Measure Of Semantic Relatednessmentioning
confidence: 99%