Automated classification of congressional legislation

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series

Volumn 151, Issue , 2006, Pages 219-226

  Purpura, Stephen ^a   Hillard, Dustin ^b  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Institutions; Legislative activities; Support vector machines; SVMs; Text analysis; U.S. Congress

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATED CLASSIFICATION; LEGISLATIVE INDEXING VOCABULARY (LIV); TOPIC CODING SYSTEM;

AUTOMATIC PROGRAMMING; CONTENT BASED RETRIEVAL; INDEXING (OF INFORMATION); LAWS AND LEGISLATION; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINES; TEXT PROCESSING;

CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION);

EID: 34250736811     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1146598.1146660     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. Cristianini, N., Shawe-Taylor, J., and Lodhi, H. Latent semantic kernels, in Brodley, C. and Danyluk, A. Proceedings of ICML-01, 18th International Conference on Machine Learning. (San Francisco, US, 2001), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pages 66-73.
2. Deerwester, S. et al. Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 41(6):391-407.
3. Gwet, K. Kappa Statistic is not Satisfactory for Assessing the Extent of Agreement Between Raters, in Statistical Methods For Inter-Rater Reliability Assessment, No. 1, April, 2002.
4. Joachims, T. Text Categorization with Support Vector Machines: Learning with Many Relevant Features. Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning (ECML). (Springer, 1998)
5. Joachims, T. Making Large-Scale SVM Learning Practical, in: Advances in Kernel Methods - Support Vector Learning, B. Schölkopf, C. Surges, and A. Smola (ed.), MIT Press, 1999.
6. Kwon, N., Shulman, S.W., andHovy, E.H.. (Under review). "Collective text analysis for eRulemaking." Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Digital Government Research. San Diego, CA.
7. Laver, M., Benoit, K., and Garry, J. Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. In American Political Science Review 97(2).
8. Papineni, K. "Why inverse document frequency?" IN Proceedings of the North American Association for Computational Linguistics, NAACL, pp. 25-32. (2001)
9. Porter, M. F. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program, 16(3):130-137.
10. Sebastiani, F. Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Computing Surveys, 34(1).
11. Tokunaga, T. and Iwayama, M. Text categorization based on weighted inverse document frequency. Technical Report 94 TR0001, Department of Computer Science, (Tokyo Institute of Technology, 1994).
12. Yang, H., Gallon, J., and Shulman, S. (Under review) "Next steps in near-duplicate detection for eRulemaking." Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Digital Government Research. San Diego, CA.
13. Yang, Y. and Liu, X. 1999. A re-examination of text categorization methods. In Proceedings of SIGIR-99, November.
14. Vapnic, V. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer, New York, NY. 1995.