Genre and domain in patent texts

International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 39-46

  Oostdijk, Nelleke ^a   D'hondt, Eva ^a   Van Halteren, Hans ^a   Verberne, Suzan ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Parsing; Patent domains; Text mining

Indexed keywords

FOUR SECTIONS; PARSING; PATENT DOMAINS; PATENT RETRIEVAL; SYNTACTIC PARSERS; TEXT GENRE; TEXT MINING;

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS; SYNTACTICS;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 78651276623     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1871888.1871896     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Cornelis Koster and Jean Beney. 2009. Phrase-based Document Categorization Revisited. In Proceedings CIKM 2009, pages 49-55.
2. Eva D'hondt, Suzan Verberne, Nelleke Oostdijk, and Lou Boves. 2010. Re-ranking based on Syntactic Dependencies in Prior-Art Retrieval. In Proceedings of the Dutch-Belgium Information Retrieval Workshop 2010.
3. Noriko Kando. 2000. The NTCIR Workshop: an evaluation of Asian language information retrieval. Presented at RIAO '2000.
4. Svetlana Sheremetyeva 2003. Natural Language Analysis of Patent Claims. Proceedings of the workshop "Patent Corpus Processing" in conjunction with 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2003), Sapporo. Japan, July 7-12.
5. Suzan Verberne, Eva D'hondt, Nelleke Oostdijk, Cornelis Koster. 2010. Quantifying the Challenges in Parsing Patent Claims. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Advances in Patent Information Retrieval (AsPIRe 2010), pp. 14-21.
6. Eugene Charniak. 1995. Parsing with Context-Free Grammars and Word Statistics. Technical Report CS-95-28, Dept. of Computer Science, Brown University.
7. http://www.connexor.eu/technology/machinese/demo/syntax/
8. Satoshi Sekine. The domain dependence of parsing. In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Innovative Application of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-97), Providence, RI, pages 96-102. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, July 1997.
9. Pyysalo S, Ginter F, Pahikkala T, Boberg J, Järvinen J, Salakoski T: Evaluation of Two Dependency Parsers on Biomedical Corpus Targeted at Protein-Protein Interactions. Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing for Biomedical Applications, special issue of the International Journal of Medical Informatics 2006, 75(6):430-442.
10. Douglas Biber. 1993. Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8, 243-257.
11. Cornelis Koster, Nelleke Oostdijk, Suzan Verberne, and Eva D'hondt. 2009. Challenges in Professional Search with PHASAR. Proceedings of DIR 2009: 101-102.
12. Cornelis Koster, Marc Seutter, and Olaf Seibert. 2006. The Phasar Search Engine. In Proceedings NLDB 2006. Springer LNCS 3999: 141-152.
13. Igor Mel'čuk. 2009. Dependency in Natural Language. In Alain Polguère and Igor Mel'čuk (Eds.), Dependency in Linguistic Description: 1-110. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
14. Peter Bruza and Theo Huibers. 1996. A Study of Aboutness in Information Retrieval. Artificial Intelligence Review, 10: 1-27
15. Cornelis Koster, Marc Seutter, and Olaf Seibert. 2007. Parsing the Medline Corpus. In Proceedings RANLP 2007: 325-329.
16. th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing (Mexico City, Mexico, February 18-24, 2007). A. Gelbukh. Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4394. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 599-610.
17. Douglas Biber. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Michael Oakes. 1998. Statistics for Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Press.