Employing thematic variables for enhancing classification accuracy within author discrimination experiments

Literary and Linguistic Computing

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 207-224

  Tambouratzis, George ^a   Vassiliou, Marina ^a  

^a INSTITUTE FOR LANGUAGE AND SPEECH PROCESSING   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34447647888     PISSN: 02681145     EISSN: 14774615     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/llc/fqm003     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Baayen, R. H., van Halteren, H., and Tweedie, F. J. (1996). Outside the cave of shadows: Using syntactic annotation to enhance authorship attribution. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 11 (3): 121-31.
2. Bartholomew, D. (1988). Probability, statistics and theology. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series A, 151(Part 1): 137-78.
3. Biber, D. (1993). Using register-diversified corpora for general language studies. Computational Linguistics, 19(2): 219-41.
4. Burrows, J. (2002). 'Delta': A measure of stylistic difference and a guide to likely authorship. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 17(3): 267-87.
5. Collins, J., Kaufer, D., Vlachos, P., Butler, B., and Ishizaki, S. (2004). Detecting collaborations in text. Comparing the Authors' Rhetorical Language Choices in The Federalist Papers. Computers and the Humanities, 38(1): 15-36.
6. Dillon, W. R. and Goldstein, M. (1984). Multivariate Analysis: Methods & Applications. New York: John Wiley & sons.
7. Dittenbach, M., Rauber, A., and Merkl, D. (2001). Recent advances with the growing hierarchical self-organising map. In Allinson, N., Yin, H., Allinson, L., and Slack, J. (eds), Advances in Self-Organising Maps. London, UK: Springer-Verlag, pp. 140-5.
8. Elliott, W. E. and Valenza, R. J. (1999). The Professor Doth Protest too Much, Methinks: Problems with the "Foster": "Response". Computers and the Humanities, 32: 425-90.
9. Foster, D. W. (1999). The Claremont Shakespeare Authorship Clinic: how severe are the Problems? Computers and the Humanities, 32 6): 491-510.
10. Gurney, P. J. and Gurney, L. W. (1998). Subsets and homogeneity: authorship attribution in the Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 13: 133-40.
11. Holmes, D. I. (1985). The analyis of literary style - a review. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series A, 148(Part 4): 328-41.
12. Holmes, D. I. (1992). A stylometric analysis of Mormon Scripture and related texts. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series A, 155(Part 1): 91-120.
13. Holmes, D. I. (1994). Authorship attribution. Computers and the Humanities, 28(2):87-106.
14. Holmes, D. I. (1998). The evolution of stylometry in humanities scholarship. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 13(3): 111-7.
15. Hoover, D. L. (2002). Frequent word sequences and statistical stylistics. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 17(2): 157-79.
16. Karlgren, J. and Cutting, D. (1994). Recognising Text Genres with Simple Metrics Using Discriminant Analysis, Proceedings of the COLING'94 Conference, August 5-9, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 1071-5.
17. Khmelev, D. V. and Tweedie, F. J. (2002). Using Markov Chains for identification of authors. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 16(4): 299-307.
18. Kohonen, T., Kaski, S., Lagus, K. et al. (2000). Self-orgnisation of a massive document collection. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 11(3): 574-85.
19. Matthews, R. and Merriam, T. (1993). Neural computation in stylometry I: An application to the works of Shakespeare and Fletcher. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4): 203-9.
20. Merkl, D. (1999). Document classification with self-organising maps. In Oja, E. and Kaski, S. (eds), Kohonen Maps. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 183-97.
21. Mosteller, F. and Wallace, D. L. (1984). Applied Bayesian and Classical Inference. The Case of The Federalist Papers 2nd edn. New York: Springer-Verlag.
22. Rudman, J. (2000). Non-traditional authorship attribution studies: Ignis Fatuus or Rosetta Stone? Bibliographical Society of Australia and New Zealand Bulletin, 24(3):163-76.
23. Sichel, H. S. (1974). On a distribution representing sentence-length in written prose. Journal of the Royal Statistical Sociely - Series A, 137(Part 1):25-34.
24. Stamatatos, E., Fakotakis, N., and Kokkinakis, G. (2001). Automatic text categorisation in terms of genre and author. Computational Linguistics, 26(4): 471-95.
25. Tambouratzis, G. (2006). Assessing the effectiveness of feature groups in author recognition tasks with the eSOM model. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 36(2):249-259.
26. Tambouratzis, G., Hairetakis, N., Markantonatou, S., and Carayannis, G. (2003). Applying the SOM model to text classification according to register and stylistic content. International Journal of Neural Systems, 13(1): 1-11.
27. Tambouratzis, G., Markantonatou, S., Hairetakis, N., Vassiliou, M., Tambouratzis, D., and Carayannis, G. (2004a). Discriminating the registers and styles in the modern greek language - Part 1: Diglossia in stylistics analysis. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 19 2): 197-220.
28. Tambouratzis, G., Markantonatou, S., Hairetakis, N., Vassiliou, M., Tambouratzis, D., and Carayannis, G. (2004b). Discriminating the registers and styles in the modern Greek language - Part 2: Extending the feature vector to optimise author discrimination. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 19(2): 221-42.
29. Tweedie, F. J., Singh, S., and Holmes, D. I. (1996). Neural networks in stylometry: The Federalist papers. Computers and the Humanities, 30(1): 1-10.
30. Waugh, S., Adams, A., and Tweedie, F. (2000). Computational stylistics using artificial neural networks. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 15(2): 187-98.