With the development of information technology, there is an explosive growth in the number of online comment concerning news, blogs and so on. The massive comments are overloaded, and often contain some misleading and unwelcome information. Therefore, it is necessary to identify high-quality comments and filter out low-quality comments. In this work, we introduce a novel task: high-quality comment identification (HQCI), which aims to automatically assess the quality of online comments. First, we construct a news comment corpus, which consists of news, comments, and the corresponding quality label. Second, we analyze the dataset, and find the quality of comments can be measured in three aspects: informativeness, consistency, and novelty. Finally, we propose a novel multi-target text matching model, which can measure three aspects by referring to the news and surrounding comments. Experimental results show that our method can outperform various baselines by a large margin on the news dataset.
There is previous work regarding rating the academic paper @cite_7 , while this work is about rating the news comments, which is different from them.
@cite_7
2107972503 2122778642 1985710361 2799174190 36261270 2062340319 1995326326 2145071407 2157979304 2950622308 2029099433 1978059262 2148908252 2098173428 2038282574 2126793736 2164259805 1911240979 1595917920 1978868011
The old Asian legend about the blind men and the elephant comes to mind when looking at how different authors of scientific papers describe a piece of related prior work. It turns out that different citations to the same paper often focus on different aspects of that paper and that neither provides a full description of its full set of contributions. In this article, we will describe our investigation of this phenomenon. We studied citation summaries in the context of research papers in the biomedical domain. A citation summary is the set of citing sentences for a given article and can be used as a surrogate for the actual article in a variety of scenarios. It contains information that was deemed by peers to be important. Our study shows that citation summaries overlap to some extent with the abstracts of the papers and that they also differ from them in that they focus on different aspects of these papers than do the abstracts. In addition to this, co-cited articles (which are pairs of articles cited by another article) tend to be similar. We show results based on a lexical similarity metric called cohesion to justify our claims. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. When we write or prepare to write a research paper, we always have appropriate references in mind. However, there are most likely references we have missed and should have been read and cited. As such a good citation recommendation system would not only improve our paper but, overall, the efficiency and quality of literature search. Usually, a citation's context contains explicit words explaining the citation. Using this, we propose a method that "translates" research papers into references. By considering the citations and their contexts from existing papers as parallel data written in two different "languages", we adopt the translation model to create a relationship between these two "vocabularies". Experiments on both CiteSeer and CiteULike dataset show that our approach outperforms other baseline methods and increase the precision, recall and f-measure by at least 5 to 10 , respectively. In addition, our approach runs much faster in the both training and recommending stage, which proves the effectiveness and the scalability of our work. Comments left by readers on Web documents contain valuable information that can be utilized in different information retrieval tasks including document search, visualization, and summarization. In this paper, we study the problem of comments-oriented document summarization and aim to summarize a Web document (e.g., a blog post) by considering not only its content, but also the comments left by its readers. We identify three relations (namely, topic, quotation, and mention) by which comments can be linked to one another, and model the relations in three graphs. The importance of each comment is then scored by: (i) graph-based method, where the three graphs are merged into a multi-relation graph; (ii) tensor-based method, where the three graphs are used to construct a 3rd-order tensor. To generate a comments-oriented summary, we extract sentences from the given Web document using either feature-biased approach or uniform-document approach. The former scores sentences to bias keywords derived from comments; while the latter scores sentences uniformly with comments. In our experiments using a set of blog posts with manually labeled sentences, our proposed summarization methods utilizing comments showed significant improvement over those not using comments. The methods using feature-biased sentence extraction approach were observed to outperform that using uniform-document approach. As more and more academic papers are being submitted to conferences and journals, evaluating all these papers by professionals is time-consuming and can cause inequality due to the personal factors of the reviewers. In this paper, in order to assist professionals in evaluating academic papers, we propose a novel task: automatic academic paper rating (AAPR), which automatically determine whether to accept academic papers. We build a new dataset for this task and propose a novel modularized hierarchical convolutional neural network to achieve automatic academic paper rating. Evaluation results show that the proposed model outperforms the baselines by a large margin. The dataset and code are available at this https URL Scientific papers revolve around citations, and for many discourse level tasks one needs to know whose work is being talked about at any point in the discourse. In this paper, we introduce the scientific attribution task, which links different linguistic expressions to citations. We discuss the suitability of different evaluation metrics and evaluate our classification approach to deciding attribution both intrinsically and in an extrinsic evaluation where information about scientific attribution is shown to improve performance on Argumentative Zoning, a rhetorical classification task. We examine the effect of modeling a researcher's past works in recommending scholarly papers to the researcher. Our hypothesis is that an author's published works constitute a clean signal of the latent interests of a researcher. A key part of our model is to enhance the profile derived directly from past works with information coming from the past works' referenced papers as well as papers that cite the work. In our experiments, we differentiate between junior researchers that have only published one paper and senior researchers that have multiple publications. We show that filtering these sources of information is advantageous -- when we additionally prune noisy citations, referenced papers and publication history, we achieve statistically significant higher levels of recommendation accuracy. We approach the problem of academic literature search by considering an unpublished manuscript as a query to a search system. We use the text of previous literature as well as the citation graph that connects it to find relevant related material. We evaluate our technique with manual and automatic evaluation methods, and find an order of magnitude improvement in mean average precision as compared to a text similarity baseline. Web 2.0 technologies have enabled more and more people to freely comment on different kinds of entities (e.g. sellers, products, services). The large scale of information poses the need and challenge of automatic summarization. In many cases, each of the user-generated short comments comes with an overall rating. In this paper, we study the problem of generating a rated aspect summary'' of short comments, which is a decomposed view of the overall ratings for the major aspects so that a user could gain different perspectives towards the target entity. We formally define the problem and decompose the solution into three steps. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our methods by using eBay sellers' feedback comments. We also quantitatively evaluate each step of our methods and study how well human agree on such a summarization task. The proposed methods are quite general and can be used to generate rated aspect summary automatically given any collection of short comments each associated with an overall rating. In citation-based summarization, text written by several researchers is leveraged to identify the important aspects of a target paper. Previous work on this problem focused almost exclusively on its extraction aspect (i.e. selecting a representative set of citation sentences that highlight the contribution of the target paper). Meanwhile, the fluency of the produced summaries has been mostly ignored. For example, diversity, readability, cohesion, and ordering of the sentences included in the summary have not been thoroughly considered. This resulted in noisy and confusing summaries. In this work, we present an approach for producing readable and cohesive citation-based summaries. Our experiments show that the proposed approach outperforms several baselines in terms of both extraction quality and fluency. There are many on-line settings in which users publicly express opinions. A number of these offer mechanisms for other users to evaluate these opinions; a canonical example is Amazon.com, where reviews come with annotations like "26 of 32 people found the following review helpful." Opinion evaluation appears in many off-line settings as well, including market research and political campaigns. Reasoning about the evaluation of an opinion is fundamentally different from reasoning about the opinion itself: rather than asking, "What did Y think of X?", we are asking, "What did Z think of Y's opinion of X?" Here we develop a framework for analyzing and modeling opinion evaluation, using a large-scale collection of Amazon book reviews as a dataset. We find that the perceived helpfulness of a review depends not just on its content but also but also in subtle ways on how the expressed evaluation relates to other evaluations of the same product. As part of our approach, we develop novel methods that take advantage of the phenomenon of review "plagiarism" to control for the effects of text in opinion evaluation, and we provide a simple and natural mathematical model consistent with our findings. Our analysis also allows us to distinguish among the predictions of competing theories from sociology and social psychology, and to discover unexpected differences in the collective opinion-evaluation behavior of user populations from different countries. Citation relationship between scientific publications has been successfully used for scholarly bibliometrics, information retrieval and data mining tasks, and citation-based recommendation algorithms are well documented. While previous studies investigated citation relations from various viewpoints, most of them share the same assumption that, if paper1 cites paper2 (or author1 cites author2), they are connected, regardless of citation importance, sentiment, reason, topic, or motivation. However, this assumption is oversimplified. In this study, we employ an innovative "context-rich heterogeneous network" approach, which paves a new way for citation recommendation task. In the network, we characterize 1) the importance of citation relationships between citing and cited papers, and 2) the topical citation motivation. Unlike earlier studies, the citation information, in this paper, is characterized by citation textual contexts extracted from the full-text citing paper. We also propose algorithm to cope with the situation when large portion of full-text missing information exists in the bibliographic repository. Evaluation results show that, context-rich heterogeneous network can significantly enhance the citation recommendation performance. Scientists continue to find challenges in the ever increasing amount of information that has been produced on a world wide scale, during the last decades. When writing a paper, an author searches for the most relevant citations that started or were the foundation of a particular topic, which would very likely explain the thinking or algorithms that are employed. The search is usually done using specific keywords submitted to literature search engines such as Google Scholar and CiteSeer. However, finding relevant citations is distinctive from producing articles that are only topically similar to an author's proposal. In this paper, we address the problem of citation recommendation using a singular value decomposition approach. The models are trained and evaluated on the Citeseer digital library. The results of our experiments show that the proposed approach achieves significant success when compared with collaborative filtering methods on the citation recommendation task. On-line news agents provide commenting facilities for readers to express their views with regard to news stories. The number of user supplied comments on a news article may be indicative of its importance or impact. We report on exploratory work that predicts the comment volume of news articles prior to publication using five feature sets. We address the prediction task as a two stage classification task: a binary classification identifies articles with the potential to receive comments, and a second binary classification receives the output from the first step to label articles "low" or "high" comment volume. The results show solid performance for the former task, while performance degrades for the latter. With the rapid growth of the Internet, the ability of users to create and publish content has created active electronic communities that provide a wealth of product information. However, the high volume of reviews that are typically published for a single product makes harder for individuals as well as manufacturers to locate the best reviews and understand the true underlying quality of a product. In this paper, we reexamine the impact of reviews on economic outcomes like product sales and see how different factors affect social outcomes such as their perceived usefulness. Our approach explores multiple aspects of review text, such as subjectivity levels, various measures of readability and extent of spelling errors to identify important text-based features. In addition, we also examine multiple reviewer-level features such as average usefulness of past reviews and the self-disclosed identity measures of reviewers that are displayed next to a review. Our econometric analysis reveals that the extent of subjectivity, informativeness, readability, and linguistic correctness in reviews matters in influencing sales and perceived usefulness. Reviews that have a mixture of objective, and highly subjective sentences are negatively associated with product sales, compared to reviews that tend to include only subjective or only objective information. However, such reviews are rated more informative (or helpful) by other users. By using Random Forest-based classifiers, we show that we can accurately predict the impact of reviews on sales and their perceived usefulness. We examine the relative importance of the three broad feature categories: “reviewer-related” features, “review subjectivity” features, and “review readability” features, and find that using any of the three feature sets results in a statistically equivalent performance as in the case of using all available features. This paper is the first study that integrates econometric, text mining, and predictive modeling techniques toward a more complete analysis of the information captured by user-generated online reviews in order to estimate their helpfulness and economic impact. Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations.Design methodology approach – ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets – a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self‐citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation – using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database.Findings – ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited ... Review assignment is a common task that many people such as conference organizers, journal editors, and grant administrators would have to do routinely. As a computational problem, it involves matching a set of candidate reviewers with a paper or proposal to be reviewed. A common deficiency of all existing work on solving this problem is that they do not consider the multiple aspects of topics or expertise and all match the entire document to be reviewed with the overall expertise of a reviewer. As a result, if a document contains multiple subtopics, which often happens, existing methods would not attempt to assign reviewers to cover all the subtopics; instead, it is quite possible that all the assigned reviewers would cover the major subtopic quite well, but not covering any other subtopic. In this paper, we study how to model multiple aspects of expertise and assign reviewers so that they together can cover all subtopics in the document well. We propose three general strategies for solving this problem and propose new evaluation measures for this task. We also create a multi-aspect review assignment test set using ACM SIGIR publications. Experiment results on this data set show that the proposed methods are effective for assigning reviewers to cover all topical aspects of a document. Citation recommendation is an interesting but challenging research problem. Most existing studies assume that all papers adopt the same criterion and follow the same behavioral pattern in deciding relevance and authority of a paper. However, in reality, papers have distinct citation behavioral patterns when looking for different references, depending on paper content, authors and target venues. In this study, we investigate the problem in the context of heterogeneous bibliographic networks and propose a novel cluster-based citation recommendation framework, called ClusCite, which explores the principle that citations tend to be softly clustered into interest groups based on multiple types of relationships in the network. Therefore, we predict each query's citations based on related interest groups, each having its own model for paper authority and relevance. Specifically, we learn group memberships for objects and the significance of relevance features for each interest group, while also propagating relative authority between objects, by solving a joint optimization problem. Experiments on both DBLP and PubMed datasets demonstrate the power of the proposed approach, with 17.68 improvement in Recall@50 and 9.57 growth in MRR over the best performing baseline. The analysis of user reviews has become critical in research and industry, as user reviews increasingly impact the reputation of products and services. Many review texts comprise an involved argumentation with facts and opinions on different product features or aspects. Therefore, classifying sentiment polarity does not suffice to capture a review's impact. We claim that an argumentation analysis is needed, including opinion summarization, sentiment score prediction, and others. Since existing language resources to drive such research are missing, we have designed the ArguAna TripAdvisor corpus, which compiles 2,100 manually annotated hotel reviews balanced with respect to the reviews' sentiment scores. Each review text is segmented into facts, positive, and negative opinions, while all hotel aspects and amenities are marked. In this paper, we present the design and a first study of the corpus. We reveal patterns of local sentiment that correlate with sentiment scores, thereby defining a promising starting point for an effective argumentation analysis. Online user comments contain valuable user opinions. Comments vary greatly in quality and detecting high quality comments is a subtask of opinion mining and summarization research. Finding attentive comments that provide some reasoning is highly valuable in understanding the user’s opinion particularly in sociopolitical opinion mining and aids policy makers, social organizations or government sectors in decision making. In this paper we study the problem of detecting thoughtful comments. We empirically study various textual features, discourse relations and relevance features to predict thoughtful comments. We use logistic regression model and test on the datasets related to sociopolitical content. We found that the most useful features include the discourse relations and relevance features along with basic textual features to predict the comment quality in terms of thoughtfulness. In our experiments on two different datasets, we could achieve a prediction score of 79.37 and 73.47 in terms of F-measure on the two data sets, respectively. An analysis of three major problems in the application of bibliometric research performance indicators is made in three separate sections. In the first section, the influence of field-dependent citation practices is analysed. The results indicate that rankings of publications from different fields, based on citation counts, can be affected seriously by differences between citation characteristics in those fields. If certain assumptions hold, one should expect high (short term) citation levels in Biochemistry, Celbiology and Biophysics. Medium citation levels are to be expected in Experimental and Molecular Physics, Physical and Organic Chemistry, Pharmacology and Plant Physiology, and low citation levels in Mathematics, Taxonomy, Pharmacognosy and Inorganic Solid State Chemistry. In the second section time-dependent factors are studied. It is shown that trend-analyses of output and impact based on bibliometric scores can be disturbed by changes in theSCI-database and in publication and citation practices. One of the disturbing factors is shown to be the inclusion of so called Books into theSCI data-base in 1977. Finally, in the third section a case is presented which illustrates the consequences of operating on incomplete bibliometric data in the evaluation of scientific performance. A completeness percentage of 99 for publication data is proposed as a standard in evaluations of the performance of small university research groups).