Syntactic scope resolution in uncertainty analysis

Coling 2010 - 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference

Volumn 2, Issue , 2010, Pages 1379-1387

  Øvrelid, Lilja ^a,b   Velldal, Erik ^a   Oepen, Stephan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HANDCRAFTED RULES; MAXIMUM ENTROPY; SYNTACTIC FEATURES; SYNTACTIC SCOPE; SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE; TWO STAGE;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; SYNTACTICS;

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

EID: 80053424592     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. Butt, M., Dyvik, H., King, T. H., Masuichi, H., & Rohrer, C. (2002). The Parallel Grammar Project. In Proceedings of COLING workshop on grammar engineering and evaluation (pp. 1 - 7). Taipei, Taiwan.
2. Crouch, D., Dalrymple, M., Kaplan, R., King, T., Maxwell, J., & Newman, P. (2008). XLE documentation. Palo Alto, CA. (Palo Alto Research Center).
3. Farkas, R., Vincze, V., Mora, G., Csirik, J., & Szarvas, G. (2010). The CoNLL 2010 Shared Task: Learning to detect hedges and their scope in natural language text. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Natural Language Learning. Uppsala, Sweden.
4. Gildea, D. (2001). Corpus variation and parser performance. In Proceedings of the 2001 conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 167 - 202). Pittsburgh, PA.
5. Johansson, R., & Nugues, P. (2007). Extended constituentto- dependency conversion for English. In J. Nivre, H.- J. Kaalep, & M. Koit (Eds.), Proceedings of NODALIDA 2007 (p. 105-112). Tartu, Estonia.
6. Kilicoglu, H., & Bergler, S. (2008). Recognizing speculative language in biomedical research articles: A linguistically motivated perspective. In Proceedings of the BioNLP 2008 Workshop. Columbus, OH, USA.
7. Kim, J.-D., Ohta, T., Pyysalo, S., Kano, Y., & Tsujii, J. (2009). Overview of BioNLP 2009 Shared Task on event extraction. In Proceedings of the BioNLP 2009 workshop companion volume for shared task (pp. 1 - 9). Boulder, CO: Association for Computational Linguistics.
8. Medlock, B., & Briscoe, T. (2007). Weakly supervised learning for hedge classification in scientific literature. In Proceedings of the 45th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 992 - 999). Prague, Czech Republic: Association for Computational Linguistics.
9. Morante, R., Asch, V. V., & Daelemans, W. (2010). Memory-based resolution of in-sentence scope of hedge cues. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Natural Language Learning (pp. 40 - 47). Uppsala, Sweden.
10. Morante, R., & Daelemans, W. (2009). Learning the scope of hedge cues in biomedical texts. In Proceedings of the BioNLP 2009 Workshop (pp. 28 - 36). Boulder, Colorado.
11. Ng, V., Dasgupta, S., & Arifin, S. M. N. (2006). Examining the role of linguistic knowledge sources in the automatic identification and classification of reviews. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Sydney, Australia.
12. Nivre, J., Hall, J., & Nilsson, J. (2006). MaltParser: A datadriven parser-generator for dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (p. 2216-2219). Genoa, Italy.
13. Nivre, J., & McDonald, R. (2008, June). Integrating graphbased and transition-based dependency parsers. In Proceedings of the 46th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 950 - 958). Columbus, Ohio.
14. Øvrelid, L., Kuhn, J., & Spreyer, K. (2009). Improving datadriven dependency parsing using large-scale LFG grammars. In Proceedings of the 47th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 37 - 40). Singapore.
15. Øvrelid, L., Kuhn, J., & Spreyer, K. (2010). Crossframework parser stacking for data-driven dependency parsing. TAL 2010 special issue on Machine Learning for NLP, 50(3).
16. Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2(1-2).
17. Rei, M., & Briscoe, T. (2010). Combining manual rules and supervised learning for hedge cue and scope detection. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Natural Language Learning (pp. 56 - 63). Uppsala, Sweden.
18. Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In International conference on new methods in language processing (p. 44-49). Manchester, England.
19. Tsuruoka, Y., Tateishi, Y., Kim, J.-D., Ohta, T., McNaught, J., Ananiadou, S., et al. (2005). Developing a robust Part-of-Speech tagger for biomedical text. In Advances in informatics (pp. 382 - 392). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
20. Velldal, E., Øvrelid, L., & Oepen, S. (2010). Resolving speculation: MaxEnt cue classification and dependencybased scope rules. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Natural Language Learning. Uppsala, Sweden.
21. Vincze, V., Szarvas, G., Farkas, R., Móra, G., & Csirik, J. (2008). The BioScope corpus: Annotation for negation, uncertainty and their scope in biomedical texts. In Proceedings of the BioNLP 2008 Workshop. Columbus, OH, USA.
22. Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., & Hwa, R. (2006). Recognizing strong and weak opinion clauses. Computational Intelligence, 22(2), 73 - 99. (Pubitemid 43787301)
23. Zhang, Y., & Wang, R. (2009). Cross-domain dependency parsing using a deep linguistic grammar. In Proceedings of the 47th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Singa.