The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Identifying sources of opinions with conditional random fields and extraction patterns
Open accessAbstract
Recent systems have been developed for sentiment classification, opinion recognition, and opinion analysis (e.g., detecting polarity and strength). We pursue another aspect of opinion analysis: identifying the sources of opinions, emotions, and sentiments. We view this problem as an information extraction task and adopt a hybrid approach that combines Conditional Random Fields (Lafferty et al., 2001) and a variation of AutoSlog (Riloff, 1996a). While CRFs model source identification as a sequence tagging task, AutoSlog learns extraction patterns. Our results show that the combination of these two methods performs better than either one alone. The resulting system identifies opinion sources with 79.3% precision and 59.5% recall using a head noun matching measure, and 81.2% precision and 60.6% recall using an overlap measure.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Conditional Random Fields: Probabilistic Models for Segmenting and Labeling Sequence Data
Lafferty, J., McCallum, A., & Pereira, F. C. N. (2001) · ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) · Cited by 12,935
Thumbs up?: sentiment classification using machine learning techniques
Pang, B., Lee, L., & Vaithyanathan, S. (2002) · Proceedings of the ACL-02 conference on Empirical methods in natural language processing - EMNLP '02 · doi:10.3115/1118693.1118704 · Cited by 7,024
Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down? Semantic Orientation Applied to Unsupervised Classification of Reviews
Peter, P., & Turney (2002) · Cited by 3,650
A sentimental education: sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts
Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2004) · Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - ACL '04 · doi:10.3115/1218955.1218990 · Cited by 3,301
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J. B. (1998) · Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - · doi:10.3115/980845.980860 · Cited by 2,518
English verb classes and alternations : a preliminaryinvestigation
Levin, B. (1993) · Americanae (AECID Library) · Cited by 2,430
Thumbs up or thumbs down?: semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews
Turney, P. D. (2001) · Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - ACL '02 · doi:10.3115/1073083.1073153 · Cited by 2,352
English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation
Tenny, C., & Levin, B. (1995) · Language · doi:10.2307/415968 · Cited by 2,299
The Proposition Bank: An Annotated Corpus of Semantic Roles
Palmer, M., Gildea, D., & Kingsbury, P. (2005) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/0891201053630264 · Cited by 2,273
Mining the peanut gallery: opinion extraction and semantic classification of product reviews
Dave, K., Lawrence, S., & Pennock, D. M. (2003) · Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on World Wide Web - WWW '03 · doi:10.1145/775152.775226 · Cited by 1,916
Cited by
Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Liu, B. (2012) · Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02145-9 · Cited by 3,281
Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Zhang, L., & Liu, B. (2017) · Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-7687-1_907 · Cited by 3,260
Joint sentiment/topic model for sentiment analysis
Lin, C., & He, Y. (2009) · Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management · doi:10.1145/1645953.1646003 · Cited by 961
Temporal patterns of happiness and information in a global social network: hedonometrics and Twitter
Dodds, P. S., Harris, K. D., Kloumann, I. M., Bliss, C. A., & Danforth, C. M. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026752 · Cited by 809
Sentiment analysis: A combined approach
Prabowo, R., & Thelwall, M. (2009) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.01.003 · Cited by 803
Metadata
- Authors
- Choi, Y., Cardie, C., Riloff, E., & Patwardhan, S.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing - HLT '05
- Published
- 2005
- Pages
- 355-362
- OpenAlex
- W2136140395
- Cited by
- 366
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 12.16
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Identifying sources of opinions with conditional random fields and extraction patterns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3115/1220575.1220620
- The paper
- Choi, Y., Cardie, C., Riloff, E., & Patwardhan, S. (2005). Identifying sources of opinions with conditional random fields and extraction patterns. Proceedings of the conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing - HLT '05. https://doi.org/10.3115/1220575.1220620
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
