skip to main content
10.1145/1088622.1088626acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesk-capConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Extracting knowledge from evaluative text

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 October 2005Publication History

ABSTRACT

Capturing knowledge from free-form evaluative texts about an entity is a challenging task. New techniques of feature extraction, polarity determination and strength evaluation have been proposed. Feature extraction is particularly important to the task as it provides the underpinnings of the extracted knowledge. The work in this paper introduces an improved method for feature extraction that draws on an existing unsupervised method. By including user-specific prior knowledge of the evaluated entity, we turn the task of feature extraction into one of term similarity by mapping crude (learned) features into a user-defined taxonomy of the entity's features. Results show promise both in terms of the accuracy of the mapping as well as the reduction in the semantic redundancy of crude features.

References

  1. AAAI. Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Effect in Text: Theories and Apps, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. R. Agrawal and R. Srikant. Fast algorithms for mining association rules. In Proc. 20th Int'l Conf. VLDB, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Budanitsky and G. Hirst. Semantic distance in wordnet: An experimental, application-oriented evaluation of five measures. In Workshop on WordNet and Other Lexical Resources, NAACL, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. G. Carenini and J. D. Moore. An empirical study of the influence of user tailoring on evaluative argument effectiveness. In Proc. IJCAI, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. I. Dagan. Contextual Word Similarity, chapter 19, pages 459--476. Marcel Dekker Inc, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. European Conference on AI. Workshop on ML for Information Extraction, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Z. S. Harris. Mathematical Structures of Language. Wiley, 1968.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. M. Hu and B. Liu. Feature based summary of customer reviews dataset. http://www.cs.uic.edu/~liub/FBS/FBS.html, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. M. Hu and B. Liu. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proc. ACM SIGKDD, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. Hu and B. Liu. Mining opinion features in customer reviews. In Proc. AAAI, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. D. Kushal, S. Lawrence, and D. M. Pennock. Mining the peanut gallery: Opinion extraction and semantic classification of product reviews. In Proc. 12th Int'l Conf. on WWW, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. D. Lin. An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In Proc. 2nd Int'l Conf. on ML, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. G. A. Miller. An online lexical database. Int'l Journal of Lexicography, 3(4):235--312, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. S. Morinaga, K. Yamanishi, K. Tateishi, and T. Fukushima. Mining product reputations on the web. In Proc. ACM SIGKDD, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. S. Patwardhan and T. Pedersen. Cpan module wordnet::similarity, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. P. Resnik. Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. In IJCAI, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. Weeds, D. Weir, and D. McCarthy. Characterising measures of lexical distributional similarity. In Proc. COLING, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. T. Wilson, J. Wiebe, and R. Hwa. Just how mad are you? finding strong and weak opinion clauses. In Proc. AAAI, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. I. Zukerman, S. George, and Y. Wen. Lexical paraphrasing for document retrieval and node identification. In 2nd Inter. Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2003), 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Extracting knowledge from evaluative text

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        K-CAP '05: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Knowledge capture
        October 2005
        234 pages
        ISBN:1595931635
        DOI:10.1145/1088622

        Copyright © 2005 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 2 October 2005

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate55of198submissions,28%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader