Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval 1999
DOI: 10.1145/312624.312661
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Information retrieval based on context distance and morphology

Abstract: We present an approach to information retrieval based on context distance and morphology. Context distance is a measure we use to assess the closeness of word meanings. This context distance model measures semantic distances between words using the local contexts of words within a single document as well as the lexical co-occurrence information in the set of documents to be retrieved. We also propose to integrate the context distance model with morphological analysis in determining word similarity so that the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
(2 reference statements)
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In doing so, Rapp demonstrated that word vectors in such models contain an aggregate representation of the underlying semantics, which implies content rich vectors (i.e., those collecting co-occurrence statistics for a word used in multiple contexts and senses, as affixes are) can provide better representations of a given word's semantic content. Similarly, Jing and Tzoukermann (1999) demonstrated that morphological information improved calculations of semantic relatedness between two words (i.e., by computing the distance between their vectors using their own model based on second-order, word-word co-occurrence statistics).…”
Section: Performance Impact Of Morphological Decompositionmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In doing so, Rapp demonstrated that word vectors in such models contain an aggregate representation of the underlying semantics, which implies content rich vectors (i.e., those collecting co-occurrence statistics for a word used in multiple contexts and senses, as affixes are) can provide better representations of a given word's semantic content. Similarly, Jing and Tzoukermann (1999) demonstrated that morphological information improved calculations of semantic relatedness between two words (i.e., by computing the distance between their vectors using their own model based on second-order, word-word co-occurrence statistics).…”
Section: Performance Impact Of Morphological Decompositionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Jing and Tzoukermann (1999) used externally provided morphological information and showed it improved calculations of semantic relatedness between two words (i.e., by computing the distance between their vectors using an implementation based on second-order, word-word lexical co-occurrence statistics). Harman (1991) found that stemming provided no performance improvement, regardless of the stemming algorithm used.…”
Section: Limitations Of Corpus-based Semantic Space Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the end of the windowing process, an information theoretic measure is applied to compute the co-occurrence statistics between the targeting linguistic patterns and other tokens appearing in the same text window across the corpus. Thereby, context vectors [17], [41] can be created to describe the semantic of the extracted concepts.…”
Section: A Framework For Automatic Concept Map Generationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Collocational expressions provide the contexts to extract the semantics of concepts embedded in natural language texts such as net news, blogs, emails, or Web documents [35]. In computational linguistic, a term refers to one or more tokens (words), and a term could also been taken as a concept if it carries recognizable meaning with respect to a context (domain) [17], [31].…”
Section: The Cognitive and Linguistic Foundationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Term co-occurrence has been used for many purposes (Jing and Tzoukermann 1999). However, they do not find communities.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%