The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparing citation contexts for information retrieval
Abstract
In previous work, we have shown that using terms from around citations in citing papers to index the cited paper, in addition to the cited paper's own terms, can improve retrieval effectiveness. Now, we investigate how to select text from around the citations in order to extract good index terms. We compare the retrieval effectiveness that results from a range of contexts around the citations, including no context, the entire citing paper, some fixed windows and several variations with linguistic motivations. We conclude with an analysis of the benefits of more complex, linguistically motivated methods for extracting citation index terms, over using a fixed window of terms. We speculate that there might be some advantage to using computational linguistic techniques for this task.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Authors often use multiple sentences to indicate a citation's purpose.
“However, authors often use multiple sentences to indicate a citation's purpose (Abu-Jbara and Radev, 2012;Ritchie et al., 2008;He et al., 2011;Kataria et al., 2011).”
From Measuring the Evolution of a Scientific Field through Citation Frames (2018) · cites this paper as Ritchie et al., 2008
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 30
- 10.1007/978-3-540-45175-4_45 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0169-7552(98)00110-X · DOI · Paper page
- Briscoe E., 2002, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 1499
- Cleverdon C., 1966, ASLIB Cranfield Project
- 10.1016/0306-4573(93)90056-J · DOI
- 10.1145/1277741.1277912 · DOI
- Hawking D., 2005, MIT Press
- Hersh W., 2003, Proceedings of the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), 14
- Hersh W., 2004, Proceedings of the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC)
- Hersh W., 2006, Proceedings of the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC)
- 10.1002/asi.5090140103 · DOI
- Kluck M., 2003, Proceedings of Cross-Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF), 376
- 10.1016/S0169-7552(94)90149-X · DOI
- Meij E., 2007, Proceedings of the International Conference on Recherche d'Information Assistée par Ordinateur (RIAO)
- 10.5555/974305.974340 · DOI
- 10.1007/11551362_35 · DOI
- 10.1016/0306-4573(82)90036-X · DOI
- 10.1016/0306-4573(83)90053-5 · DOI
- Powley B., 2007, Proceedings of the International Conference on Recherche d'Information Assistée par Ordinateur (RIAO)
- Ritchie A., 2007, Proceedings of the International Conference on Recherche d'Information Assistéée par Ordinateur (RIAO)
- 10.3115/1220835.1220885 · DOI
- 10.5555/1629808.1629813 · DOI
- Ritchie A., 2007, Proceedings of the European Conference for Information Retrieval (ECIR)
- Schneider J., 2004, Royal School of Library and Information Science
- 10.5555/1567619.1567650 · DOI
- 10.1002/asi.4630240406 · DOI · Paper page
- Small H., 1982, Progress in Communication Sciences, 3, 287
- 10.1145/1277741.1277868 · DOI
- Strohman T., 2005, University of Massachusetts
- 10.5555/1610075.1610091 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03243-4 · Cited by 236
Measuring the Evolution of a Scientific Field through Citation Frames
Jurgens, D., Kumar, S., Hoover, R., McFarland, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2018) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00028 · Cited by 212
Metadata
- Authors
- Ritchie, A., Robertson, S., & Teufel, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
- Microsoft Research Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2008-10-26
- Pages
- 213-222
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
