• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 16250 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 16250 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Accademia University Press
  • ›
  • Collana dell'Associazione Italiana di Li...
  • ›
  • Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Confer...
  • ›
  • Identifying Predictive Features for Text...
  • Accademia University Press
  • Accademia University Press
    Accademia University Press
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral 1 Introduction 2 Model training and feature ranking 3 Typology of Features 4 Experiments 5 Results 6 Conclusion Acknowledgements Bibliographie Notes de bas de page Auteurs

    Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Identifying Predictive Features for Textual Genre Classification: the Key Role of Syntax

    Andrea Cimino, Martijn Wieling, Felice Dell’Orletta, Simonetta Montemagni et Giulia Venturi

    p. 107-112

    Résumés

    The paper investigates impact and role of different feature types for the specific task of Automatic Genre Classification with the final aim of identifying the most predictive ones. The goal was pursued by carrying out incremental feature selection through Grafting using different sets of linguistic features. Achieved results for discriminating among four traditional textual genres show the key role played by syntactic features, whose impact turned out to vary across genres.

    L’articolo intende indagare il ruolo svolto da diversi tipi di caratteristiche linguistiche nella classificazione automatica del genere testuale al fine di identificare le più efficaci e rilevanti. A questo scopo è stata messa a punto una metodologia basata su un processo incrementale di selezione realizzato mediante un algoritmo di Grafting usando diversi tipi di caratteristiche. I risultati raggiunti mostrano il ruolo chiave delle caratteristiche sintattiche, il cui impatto varia in modo significativo tra generi diversi.

    Texte intégral 1 Introduction 2 Model training and feature ranking 3 Typology of Features 4 Experiments 4.1 Experimental Setup 4.2 Replication 5 Results 5.1 Genre Classification Results 5.2 Feature Ranking Results 6 Conclusion Acknowledgements Bibliographie Notes de bas de page Auteurs

    Texte intégral

    1 Introduction

    1Automatic classification of textual genres has always received significant attention from both theoretical and application perspectives. On the one hand, it has been considered relevant by linguists and educators to teach students the correct way of writing in specific communicative scenarios (Biber, 1995; Lee, 2001). On the other hand, the classification of textual genres is seen as a way to cope with the well known problem of information overload: the exploitation of information about document genre can help to develop more accurate Information Retrieval tools. Genre identification has been considered a key factor for reducing irrelevant results of search engines, as users would be able to specify the desired textual genre along with the keywords expressing the content they are looking for (Santini, 2004; Lim, 2004; Santini, 2007). In fact, document genre and document content represent orthogonal dimensions of classifications (Finn, 2003).

    2A variety of different approaches to Automatic Genre Classification (AGC) has been proposed so far differing at the level of the genre and the typology of features considered. According to the widely acknowledged fact that no established classification of genres exists (see e.g. Sharoff (2010) or Biber (2009)), previous studies focused on ‘traditional genres’ such as journalism, handbooks, academic prose, see among the others (Kessler, 1997; Stamatatos, 2001; Fang, 2010), and on ‘web genres’, i.e. genres of web pages, see e.g. (Santini, 2004; Lim, 2004; Mehler, 2010).

    3Despite the great interest in the investigation of which linguistic features qualify a text genre (Biber, 2009; Fang, 2015), so far little effort has been devoted to use sophisticated NLP techniques, such as syntactic parsing, to capture complex linguistic features for the automatic classification of textual genres. Differently from other application scenarios where the form (the style) of a document is investigated, such as e.g. Authorship Attribution (Cranenburgh, 2012), Readability Assessment (Collins, 2014) and Native Language Identification (Tetreault, 2013), AGC approaches proposed so far mainly focus on word level linguistic features, in particular the distribution of function words, word frequency, n–gram models of both characters and Parts–Of-Speech (Santini, 2004; Crossley, 2007; Mehler, 2010) or finer-grained Parts–Of-Speech tags including morpho-syntactic features such as verb tense (Fang, 2010). Very few studies rely on features extracted from syntactically annotated texts, the exception being Stamatatos (2001) who combines lexical features (i.e. word frequency) with features extracted from the output of a chunk boundary detector (e.g. the distribution of noun, verbal, adjectival phrases), the average number of words included in verbal phrases. Similar structural features have been also used by (Lim, 2004) who combined web–specific features (e.g. HTML tags) with lexical information and features aiming at capturing the syntactic structure of a sentence, e.g. the distribution of declarative and imperative sentences, syntactic ambiguities, etc.

    4In this paper, we tackle the AGC task for traditional genres (namely literary, scientific, educational and journalistic texts) by using different types of linguistic features, i.e. lexical, morphosyntactic and syntactic. In particular, the following research questions are addressed: i) which are the most effective features to classify a textual genre, and ii) whether and to what extent features identified as most effective remain the same across different genres. These questions have been addressed by carrying out incremental feature selection with the final aim of identifying the most predictive ones. So far, studies focused on the best set of features to classify textual genres have been carried out mainly on English. In this paper, this issue is investigated for a typologically different language, Italian.

    2 Model training and feature ranking

    5In order to identify and rank the most important features playing a role in genre classification, we used GRAFTING (Perkins, 2003). This approach allows us to simultaneously train a maximum entropy model while also including incremental feature selection. Grafting uses a gradient-based heuristic to select the most promising feature (which is added to the set of selected features S), and subsequently performs a full weight optimization over all features in S. This process is repeated until a certain stopping condition is reached. The stopping condition integrates l1 regularization in the grafting approach. This means that only those features are included (with a non-zero weight) if the l1 penalty is outweighed by the reduction of the objective function. Consequently, overfitting is prevented by excluding noisy features, or those that change value infrequently. In our case, the l1 penalty was selected on the basis of evaluating maximum entropy models (using 10-fold cross validation) using varying l1 values (range: 1e-11, 1e-10, ..., 0.1, 1).

    6For selecting the features and estimating their weights, we used TINYEST1, a grafting-capable maximum entropy parameter estimator for ranking tasks (De Kok, 2011; De Kok, 2013). Even though our task is not a ranking task, it can be used for binary classification by assigning a high score (1) to the correct class and a low score (0) to the incorrect class. A similar approach was followed by Dell’Orletta (2014) for discriminating between easy–to–read vs difficult–to–read sentences. As the focus of the present study is on the classification of texts belonging to different traditional genres, we created four separate binary classifiers which were trained to distinguish Literature texts from non-Literature (i.e. the three remaining genres) texts, Educational texts from non-Educational texts, etc. A text was assigned the class of the classifier which returned the highest score.

    3 Typology of Features

    7Various types of features have been proposed in the literature for the automatic classification of text genres. Following Stamatatos (2001) and Lim (2004), we combine token–based and structural features. Token–based features were extracted from the top list of the most frequent lemmata in the training corpus and represented in terms of the relative frequency of each lemma in each document. Structural features were extracted from the considered corpora morpho–syntactically tagged by the POS tagger described in (Dell’Orletta, 2009) and dependency–parsed by the DeSR parser using Multi–Layer Perceptron (Attardi, 2009). As shown in Table 1, they range across different linguistic description levels (lexical, morpho– syntactic and syntactic) for a total of 90 features that resulted to be informative “fingerprints” of the form of a text, on issues of e.g. genre, style, authorship or readability.

    4 Experiments

    4.1 Experimental Setup

    8We used an Italian corpus including documents representative of four different genres: educational material (Dell’Orletta, 2011), newspaper articles (Marinelli, 2003), literary texts (Marinelli, 2003) and scientific papers (Dell’Orletta, 2014). The whole corpus was split up into a training set (136 documents for the Education genre, 579 for the Journalism genre, 365 for the Literature genre and 317 for the Scientific genre), and a held-out test set (60 documents for each genre).

    9To assess the influence of including structural features over simply using the most frequent words (lemmata), we used two sets of features (each consisting of about 200 features). The first set of features (taken as the baseline) corresponds to the relative frequency of the 200 top-most frequent words (henceforth referred to as the tw200 set).2 The second set combines token-based and structural features: i.e. in addition to the relative frequency of the 100 top-most frequent words, it contains the (90) structural features illustrated above and detailed in Table 1 (this set is henceforth referred to as the lingtw set). To guarantee comparability of values, for each feature the values were scaled between 0 and 1 on the basis of the data from the training set. If a (non-scaled) feature value in the held-out test set exceeded the maximum non-scaled value of that feature in the training set, it was set to the maximum value (1).

    10The feature ranking for each genre was obtained using grafting on the full training data set. The performance (i.e. the percentage of correctly classified documents) of the algorithm was evaluated for an increasing number of features (starting from including only the first (best) feature for each genre to including all features for each genre) against both a 10-fold cross-validation test set and a held-out test set.

    11The 10-fold cross-validation procedure was performed on the basis of the training set (i.e. the feature weights were determined on the basis of 90% of the training data, whereas the performance was evaluated on the remaining 10% of the training data; this procedure was repeated 10 times). As stated before, the genre of the document in the test set was assigned to the genre whose binary classification model (in this case with the same number of features) resulted in the highest score.

    12The classification accuracy was assessed with respect to the held-out test set for different numbers of features: i) the number of features associated with the best performance on the cross validation set, and ii) the lowest number of features such that the performance dropped when a new feature was added (i.e. performance kept increasing for each additional feature up to the selected number of features).

    Table 1: Typology of features automatically extracted from linguistically annotated texts.

    Typology

    Feature

    Raw Text

    Sentence and token length

    Lexical

    Rate of words in the Basic Italian Vocabulary, Type/Token ratio

    Morpho-syntactic

    Part-Of-Speech unigrams, Lexical density, Verbal mood

    Syntactic

    Dependency type unigrams, Parse tree depth features, Arity of verbal predicates, Distribution of subordinate vs main clauses, Length of dependency links

    4.2 Replication

    13Results reported below can be replicated by downloading the docker image italianlp-wieling/dockergenreclas sification which contains all data and scripts necessary for the feature extraction and the grafting procedure, and also contains all results. The Docker file including all commands to setup the virtual machine can be found at https://github.com/italianlpwieling/dockergenreclassification.

    5 Results

    5.1 Genre Classification Results

    14Figures 1(a) and 1(b) report the classification results using the lingtw vs tw200 features sets: it can be clearly observed that inclusion of structural features is highly beneficial. With only 10 features, the 10-fold cross validation performance is 83.89% for the lingtw set, whereas it is only 71.51% for the tw200 set. The optimal performance for the lingtw set is reached with 106 features (89.72%), whereas a significantly lower performance is reached using the tw200 set (84.17%) despite the much higher number of features used (179). The performance on the held-out test set turned out to be slightly lower: 79.16% for 10 features using the lingtw set, against 59.16% with the tw200 set. The optimal performance for the lingtw set is reached with 80 features (86.66%), whereas for the tw200 set a lower performance (72.08%) is obtained using 133 features.

    Table 2: Percentage distribution of different typologies of ranked syntactic (S), morpho-syntactic (P), lexical (L), raw-text (R) and token-based (W) features selected via GRAFTING on the held-out test set.

    Genre

    First 10 features

    First 50 features

    First 80 features

    S

    P

    L

    R

    W

    S

    P

    L

    R

    W

    S

    P

    L

    R

    W

    Journalism

    30

    40

    30

    0

    0

    40

    38

    10

    0

    12

    38.75

    28.75

    6.25

    1.25

    25

    Literature

    40

    30

    20

    0

    10

    34

    28

    8

    2

    28

    33.75

    26.25

    6.25

    1.25

    32.50

    Education

    50

    20

    10

    20

    0

    44

    32

    6

    4

    14

    42.5

    30

    5

    2.5

    20

    Science

    60

    10

    20

    10

    0

    50

    32

    10

    4

    4

    42.5

    30

    6.25

    2.5

    18.75

    Figure 1: Genre classification results using a held-out test set (a), and a 10-fold cross-validation procedure (b).

    Image 1000000000000320000001499E9989E9.jpg

    5.2 Feature Ranking Results

    15In order to investigate the typology of linguistic features most significantly contributing to AGC we focused on the lingtw set. In particular, we carried out an in-depth analysis of the grafting-based feature ranking resulting from the classification of the held-out test set. Ranked features were categorized into five classes: syntactic, morpho-syntactic, lexical, raw and token-based features. Figure 2 provides a genre-independent view reporting the percentage average distribution (across genres) of different feature types within the first 10, 50 and 80 ranked feature sets. As shown, syntactic features play the most relevant role. They cover the 45% and 42% of the first 10 and 50 features respectively, and remain the most predictive ones also when 80 features are considered (representing 39.38% of the set). On the other hand, the distribution of token-based features increases as far as a wider amount of ranked features is considered (they cover 2.5%, 14.5% and 24.06% in the 10, 50 and 80 feature sets respectively).

    16Consider now the distribution of different types of features across genres reported in Table 2: no- table differences can be observed. In particular, Literature and Scientific prose represent two opposite poles. Token-based features (W) are more predictive for literary texts with respect to other genres (i.e. they represent 10%, 28% and 32.50% in the top 10, 50 and 80 features respectively). On the contrary, syntactic features (S) play for Scientific prose a more important role than for the other genres (covering respectively 60%, 50% and 42.50% of the top 10, 50 and 80 features).

    Figure 2: Genre-independent average distribution of different feature types in the top 10, 50 and 80 ranked sets

    Image 10000000000002EE000001B180CB9E39.jpg

    Table 3: Different ranking positions of a selection of features across genres. Features which were not selected during ranking have no specified rank in the table.

    Journalism

    Literature

    Education

    Science

    Sentence length

    -

    82

    6

    32

    Word length

    56

    50

    3

    3

    Type/Token Ratio (forms)

    3

    95

    94

    4

    Parse tree depth

    11

    3

    37

    94

    Maximum length of dependency links

    42

    24

    48

    56

    Post-verbal subject

    16

    22

    90

    76

    Pre-verbal object

    31

    21

    47

    42

    Passive subject

    7

    53

    17

    5

    17Let’s focus now on the role played by individual features across genres. Table 3 reports the different rank positions associated with a selection of features in the classification of the four genres. Raw text features (i.e. sentence and word length) resulted to play a key role in the classification of educational materials (Education) with respect to the other genres (e.g. Literature). A feature capturing the lexical richness of texts such as Type/Token Ratio (TTR), which refers to the ratio between the number of lexical types and the number of tokens (considered as single forms) within a text, is similarly ranked for Journalism and Science while it plays a less relevant role in the classification of educational material and literary texts. Moving to syntax, it should be noted that two features characterizing the overall sentence structure, i.e. the depth of the whole parse tree (calculated in terms of the longest path from the root of the dependency tree to some leaf) and the maximum length of dependency links (calculated in terms of the words occurring between the syntactic head and the dependent), play a key role in the classification of the Literature and Journalism genres. For the latter, it is interesting to contrast the high rank associated with the parse tree depth feature and the irrelevant role played by sentence length (typically taken as a proxy of the underlying grammatical structure): this clearly shows that syntactic features are more effective in discriminating genres. Other features which turned out to play a relevant role in ACG are concerned with the relative ordering of subject and object with respect to the verbal head: their non-canonical orders, i.e. postverbal subject and pre-verbal object, play a key role in the classification of Literature and Journalism genres. On the contrary, the use of passive voice (inferred from the presence of passive subjects) is less relevant for the classification of Literature, whereas it is highly ranked in the characterization of scientific writing and newspaper articles.

    6 Conclusion

    18In this paper we investigated impact and role of different feature types for Automatic Genre Classification. The goal was pursued by carrying out incremental feature selection through Grafting augmented with TinyEst. Two sets of features were taken into account, token-based and structure-based. Achieved results show the key role played by syntactic features, a result which is new with respect to the AGC literature. Another original contribution is concerned with the role of different feature types which turned out to vary across textual genres, suggesting the specialization of features in binary genre classification tasks (e.g. Literature vs. other genres). The features contributing to AGC for Italian are possibly influenced by the language dealt with. Although it is widely acknowledged that linguistic variation across genres is a language universal, the question is whether similar linguistic features are expected to play a similar role across languages. If this might be the case of features such as e.g. TTR, use of passive voice, tenses or pronouns, on the other hand features concerned with the ordering of sentence constituents or the overall sentence structure (e.g. parse tree depth or dependency length) may be distinctive to a specific language or language family. Further directions of research thus include comparison of results in a multilingual perspective as well as across a wider variety of genres.

    Acknowledgements

    19Reported research started in the framework of a Short Term Mobility program of international exchanges funded by CNR, and continued within the project “Smart News, Social sensing for breakingnews”, funded by the Tuscany Region under the FAR-FAS 2014 program.

    Bibliographie

    Giuseppe Attardi, Felice Dell’Orletta, Maria Simi and Joseph Turian 2009. Accurate Dependency Parsing with a Stacked Multilayer Perceptron. Proceedings of Evalita 2009.

    Douglas Biber. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge University Press Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad 2009. Genre, Register, Style. Cambridge University Press

    Andreas van Cranenburgh 2012. Literary authorship attribution with phrase-structure fragments. Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Literature, 59–63

    Kevin Collins-Thompson 2014. Computational assessment of text readability: a survey of current and future research. Recent Advances in Automatic Readability Assessment and Text Simplification. Special issue of International Journal of Applied Linguistics, (165–2), 97–135

    Scott A. Crossley and Max Louwerse. 2007. Multi-dimensional register classification using bigrams. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics), (12–4) 453–478

    Daniël de Kok 2011. Discriminative features in reversible stochastic attribute-value grammars. Proceedings of the EMNLP Workshop on Language Generation and Evaluation, 54–63

    Daniël de Kok 2013. Reversible Stochastic AttributeValue Grammars. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

    Felice Dell’Orletta 2009. Ensemble system for Part-of-Speech tagging. Proceedings of Evalita’09, Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian.

    Felice Dell’Orletta, Simonetta Montemagni, Eva Maria Vecchi and Giulia Venturi. 2011. Tecnologie linguistico-computazionali per il monitoraggio della competenza linguistica italiana degli alunni stranieri nella scuola primaria e secondaria. Percorsi migranti: uomini, diritto, lavoro, linguaggi, 319–366

    Felice Dell’Orletta, Simonetta Montemagni and Giulia Venturi 2014. Assessing document and sentence readability in less resourced languages and across textual genres. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 165:2, 319–366

    Felice Dell’Orletta, Martijn Wieling, Andrea Cimino, Giulia Venturi and Simonetta Montemagni 2014. Assessing the Readability of Sentences: Which Corpora and Features? Proceedings of 9th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (BEA 2014), 163–173

    Alex Chengyu Fang, and Jing Cao. 2010. Enhanced Genre Classification through Linguistically Fine-Grained POS Tag. Proceedings of the 24th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC), 223–232 Chengyu Alex Fang, and Jing Cao 2015. Text Genres and Registers: The Computation of Linguistic Features. Springer.

    Aidan Finn and Nicholas Kushmerick 2003. Learning to classify documents according to genre. Proceedings of the IJCAI’03 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Style Analysis and Synthesis, 1–26

    Brett Kessler, Geoffrey Nunberg, and Hinrich Schütze 1997. Automatic detection of text genre. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 8th Conference of the European Chapter of ACL (ACL/EACL’97), 223–232

    David Lee. 2001. Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: clarifyng the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Proceedings of ECIR 2004 (26th European Conference on IR Research), University of Sunderland (UK), (3), 37–72

    Chul Lim, Kong Lee, and Gil Kim. 2004. Multiple sets of features for automatic genre classification of web documents. Information processing and management (41) 1263–1276

    R. Marinelli, L. Biagini, R. Bindi, S. Goggi, M. Monachini, P. Orsolini, E. Picchi, S. Rossi, N. Calzolari and A. Zampolli. 2003. The italian parole corpus: an overview. Computational Linguistics in Pisa, Special Issue, XVI-XVII, 401-421

    Alexander Mehler, Serge Sharoff and Marina Santini (Eds.) 2010. Genres on the Web. Springer Series - Text, Speech and Language Technology

    Simon Perkins, Kevin Lacker and James Theiler 2003. Grafting: Fast, incremental feature selection by gradient descent in function space. The Journal of Machine Learning Researchs, (3), 1333–1356

    Marina Santini. 2004. Identification of Genres on the Web: a Multi–Faceted Approach. Language Learning and Technology, 1–8

    Maria Santini 2007. Enhanced Genre Classification through Linguistically Fine-Grained POS Tag. Proceedings of the 24th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC), 223–232

    Serge Sharoff 2010. In the garden and in the jungle: Comparing genres in the BNC and internet. in Mehler (2010), 149–166

    Efstathios Stamatatos, Nikos Fakotakis and George Kokkinakis 2001. Automatic text categorization in terms of genre and author. Computational Linguistics, (26) 471–495

    Joel Tetreault, Daniel Blanchard and Aoife Cahill 2013. A Report on the First Native Language Identification Shared Task Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, 48–57

    Notes de bas de page

    1 http://github.com/danieldk/tinyest

    2 In our preliminary analyses, we also assessed the effect of including the most frequent bigrams as features. However, as the performance was similar to only using unigrams, we did not include bigrams as features.

    Auteurs

    • Andrea Cimino

      Istituto di Linguistica Computazionale “Antonio Zampolli” (ILC–CNR) ItaliaNLP Lab - www.italianlp.it – andrea.cimino@ilc.cnr.it

    • Martijn Wieling

      University of Groningen – The Netherlands –m.b.wieling@rug.nl

    • Felice Dell’Orletta

      Istituto di Linguistica Computazionale “Antonio Zampolli” (ILC–CNR) ItaliaNLP Lab - www.italianlp.it – felice.dellorletta@ilc.cnr.it

    • Simonetta Montemagni

      Istituto di Linguistica Computazionale “Antonio Zampolli” (ILC–CNR) ItaliaNLP Lab - www.italianlp.it – simonetta.montemagni@ilc.cnr.it

    • Giulia Venturi

      Istituto di Linguistica Computazionale “Antonio Zampolli” (ILC–CNR) ItaliaNLP Lab - www.italianlp.it – giulia.venturi@ilc.cnr.it

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    Proceedings of the Second Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2015

    Proceedings of the Second Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2015

    3-4 December 2015, Trento

    Cristina Bosco, Sara Tonelli et Fabio Massimo Zanzotto (dir.)

    2015

    Proceedings of the Third Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2016

    Proceedings of the Third Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2016

    5-6 December 2016, Napoli

    Anna Corazza, Simonetta Montemagni et Giovanni Semeraro (dir.)

    2016

    EVALITA. Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    EVALITA. Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    Proceedings of the Final Workshop 7 December 2016, Naples

    Pierpaolo Basile, Franco Cutugno, Malvina Nissim et al. (dir.)

    2016

    Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017

    Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017

    11-12 December 2017, Rome

    Roberto Basili, Malvina Nissim et Giorgio Satta (dir.)

    2017

    Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2018

    Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2018

    10-12 December 2018, Torino

    Elena Cabrio, Alessandro Mazzei et Fabio Tamburini (dir.)

    2018

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    Proceedings of the Final Workshop 12-13 December 2018, Naples

    Tommaso Caselli, Nicole Novielli, Viviana Patti et al. (dir.)

    2018

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian - December 17th, 2020

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian - December 17th, 2020

    Proceedings of the Seventh Evaluation Campaign of Natural Language Processing and Speech Tools for Italian Final Workshop

    Valerio Basile, Danilo Croce, Maria Maro et al. (dir.)

    2020

    Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020

    Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020

    Bologna, Italy, March 1-3, 2021

    Felice Dell'Orletta, Johanna Monti et Fabio Tamburini (dir.)

    2020

    Proceedings of the Eighth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CliC-it 2021

    Proceedings of the Eighth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CliC-it 2021

    Milan, Italy, 26-28 January, 2022

    Elisabetta Fersini, Marco Passarotti et Viviana Patti (dir.)

    2022

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 9
    Proceedings of the Second Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2015

    Proceedings of the Second Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2015

    3-4 December 2015, Trento

    Cristina Bosco, Sara Tonelli et Fabio Massimo Zanzotto (dir.)

    2015

    Proceedings of the Third Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2016

    Proceedings of the Third Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2016

    5-6 December 2016, Napoli

    Anna Corazza, Simonetta Montemagni et Giovanni Semeraro (dir.)

    2016

    EVALITA. Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    EVALITA. Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    Proceedings of the Final Workshop 7 December 2016, Naples

    Pierpaolo Basile, Franco Cutugno, Malvina Nissim et al. (dir.)

    2016

    Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017

    Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017

    11-12 December 2017, Rome

    Roberto Basili, Malvina Nissim et Giorgio Satta (dir.)

    2017

    Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2018

    Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2018

    10-12 December 2018, Torino

    Elena Cabrio, Alessandro Mazzei et Fabio Tamburini (dir.)

    2018

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    Proceedings of the Final Workshop 12-13 December 2018, Naples

    Tommaso Caselli, Nicole Novielli, Viviana Patti et al. (dir.)

    2018

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian - December 17th, 2020

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian - December 17th, 2020

    Proceedings of the Seventh Evaluation Campaign of Natural Language Processing and Speech Tools for Italian Final Workshop

    Valerio Basile, Danilo Croce, Maria Maro et al. (dir.)

    2020

    Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020

    Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020

    Bologna, Italy, March 1-3, 2021

    Felice Dell'Orletta, Johanna Monti et Fabio Tamburini (dir.)

    2020

    Proceedings of the Eighth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CliC-it 2021

    Proceedings of the Eighth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CliC-it 2021

    Milan, Italy, 26-28 January, 2022

    Elisabetta Fersini, Marco Passarotti et Viviana Patti (dir.)

    2022

    Voir plus de chapitres

    Overview of the EVALITA 2018 Cross-Genre Gender Prediction (GxG) Task

    Felice Dell’Orletta et Malvina Nissim

    Tandem LSTM-SVM Approach for Sentiment Analysis

    Andrea Cimino et Felice Dell’Orletta

    Building the state-of-the-art in POS tagging of Italian Tweets

    Andrea Cimino et Felice Dell’Orletta

    Sentences and Documents in Native Language Identification

    Andrea Cimino, Felice Dell’Orletta, Dominique Brunato et al.

    Multi-task Learning in Deep Neural Networks at EVALITA 2018

    Andrea Cimino, Lorenzo De Mattei et Felice Dell’Orletta

    TAG-it @ EVALITA2020: Overview of the Topic, Age, and Gender Prediction Task for Italian

    Andrea Cimino, Felice Dell’Orletta et Malvina Nissim

    Quantitative Linguistic Investigations across Universal Dependencies Treebanks

    Chiara Alzetta, Felice Dell’Orletta, Simonetta Montemagni et al.

    Overview of the EVALITA 2018 Hate Speech Detection Task

    Cristina Bosco, Felice Dell’Orletta, Fabio Poletto et al.

    Predicting movie-elicited emotions from dialogue in screenplay text: A study on “Forrest Gump”

    Benedetta Iavarone et Felice Dell’Orletta

    Preface

    Johanna Monti, Felice Dell’Orletta et Fabio Tamburini

    Trattamento automatico della lingua a supporto dell’editoria: primi esperimenti con il Devoto-Oli Junior

    Irene Dini, Felice Dell’Orletta, Fabio Ferri et al.

    Voir plus de chapitres
    1 / 11

    Overview of the EVALITA 2018 Cross-Genre Gender Prediction (GxG) Task

    Felice Dell’Orletta et Malvina Nissim

    Tandem LSTM-SVM Approach for Sentiment Analysis

    Andrea Cimino et Felice Dell’Orletta

    Building the state-of-the-art in POS tagging of Italian Tweets

    Andrea Cimino et Felice Dell’Orletta

    Sentences and Documents in Native Language Identification

    Andrea Cimino, Felice Dell’Orletta, Dominique Brunato et al.

    Multi-task Learning in Deep Neural Networks at EVALITA 2018

    Andrea Cimino, Lorenzo De Mattei et Felice Dell’Orletta

    TAG-it @ EVALITA2020: Overview of the Topic, Age, and Gender Prediction Task for Italian

    Andrea Cimino, Felice Dell’Orletta et Malvina Nissim

    Quantitative Linguistic Investigations across Universal Dependencies Treebanks

    Chiara Alzetta, Felice Dell’Orletta, Simonetta Montemagni et al.

    Overview of the EVALITA 2018 Hate Speech Detection Task

    Cristina Bosco, Felice Dell’Orletta, Fabio Poletto et al.

    Predicting movie-elicited emotions from dialogue in screenplay text: A study on “Forrest Gump”

    Benedetta Iavarone et Felice Dell’Orletta

    Preface

    Johanna Monti, Felice Dell’Orletta et Fabio Tamburini

    Trattamento automatico della lingua a supporto dell’editoria: primi esperimenti con il Devoto-Oli Junior

    Irene Dini, Felice Dell’Orletta, Fabio Ferri et al.

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    1 http://github.com/danieldk/tinyest

    2 In our preliminary analyses, we also assessed the effect of including the most frequent bigrams as features. However, as the performance was similar to only using unigrams, we did not include bigrams as features.

    Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017

    X Facebook Email

    Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017

    Ce livre est cité par

    • The Role of Work Motivation and Work Environment in Improving Job Satisfaction Based on DCNN and SVM Approach(2024) . DOI: 10.1109/IACIS61494.2024.10721957
    • Research on medical named entity recognition based on DB-MA-BiLSTM-CRF(2022) . DOI: 10.1117/12.2640767

    Ce chapitre est cité par

    • Lagutina, K. V.. Lagutina, N. S.. Boychuk, E. I.. (2022) Text Classification by Genres Based on Rhythmic Characteristics. Automatic Control and Computer Sciences, 56. DOI: 10.3103/S0146411622070136
    • Mendhakar, Akshay. (2022) Linguistic Profiling of Text Genres: An Exploration of Fictional vs. Non-Fictional Texts. Information, 13. DOI: 10.3390/info13080357
    • Buongiovanni, Chiara. Gracci, Francesco. Brunato, Dominique. Dell’Orletta, Felice. (2020) Lost in Text: A Cross-Genre Analysis of Linguistic Phenomena within Text. Italian Journal of Computational Linguistics, 6. DOI: 10.4000/ijcol.634
    • Lagutina, Ksenia Vladimirovna. Lagutina, Nadezhda Stanislavovna. Boychuk, Elena Igorevna. (2021) Text Classification by Genre Based on Rhythm Features. Modeling and Analysis of Information Systems, 28. DOI: 10.18255/1818-1015-2021-3-280-291
    • Maestre, María Miró. Vicente, Marta. Lloret, Elena. Cueto, Armando Suárez. (2022) Extracting Narrative Patterns in Different Textual Genres: A Multilevel Feature Discourse Analysis. Information, 14. DOI: 10.3390/info14010028

    Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017

    Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Cimino, A., Wieling, M., Dell’Orletta, F., Montemagni, S., & Venturi, G. (2017). Identifying Predictive Features for Textual Genre Classification: the Key Role of Syntax. In R. Basili, M. Nissim, & G. Satta (éds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017. Torino: Accademia University Press. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.aaccademia.2384
    Cimino, Andrea, Martijn Wieling, Felice Dell’Orletta, Simonetta Montemagni, et Giulia Venturi. « Identifying Predictive Features for Textual Genre Classification: The Key Role of Syntax ». In Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-It 2017, édité par Roberto Basili, Malvina Nissim, et Giorgio Satta. Torino: Accademia University Press, 2017. doi:10.4000/books.aaccademia.2384.
    Cimino, Andrea, et al. « Identifying Predictive Features for Textual Genre Classification: The Key Role of Syntax ». Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-It 2017, édité par Roberto Basili et al., Accademia University Press, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.aaccademia.2384.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Basili, R., Nissim, M., & Satta, G. (éds.). (2017). Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017. Torino: Accademia University Press. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.aaccademia.2314
    Basili, Roberto, Malvina Nissim, et Giorgio Satta, éd. Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-It 2017. Torino: Accademia University Press, 2017. doi:10.4000/books.aaccademia.2314.
    Basili, Roberto, et al., éditeurs. Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-It 2017. Accademia University Press, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.aaccademia.2314.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Accademia University Press

    Accademia University Press

    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Facebook
    • Flux RSS

    URL : http://www.aaccademia.it/

    Email : info@aaccademia.it

    Adresse :

    Accademia University Press

    Via Carlo Alberto 55

    I‐10123

    Torino

    Italia

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement