Significant themes in 19th-century literature

Poetics

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 750-769

  Jockers, Matthew L ^a   Mimno, David ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^b Social Dynamics Laboratory   (United States)

Author keywords

19th Century literature; Machine learning; Topic modeling

Indexed keywords

EID: 84888138562     PISSN: 0304422X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.poetic.2013.08.005     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Barooshian V.D. Russian Futurism in the late 1920: literature of fact. The Slavic and East European Journal 1971, 15(1):38-46.
2. Blakemore S. Matthew Lewis's black mass: sexual, religious inversion in The Monk. Studies in the Novel 1998, 30(4):521-539.
3. Blei D.M., Ng A.Y., Jordon M.I. Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2003, 3:993-1022.
4. Blevins C. Topic Modeling Martha Ballard's Diary 2010, http://historying.org/2010/04/01/topic-modeling-martha-ballards-diary/ (accessed 1.10.11).
5. Block S. Doing more with digitization: an introduction to topic modeling of early American sources. Common-place: The Interactive Journal of Early American Life 2006, 6(2). http://www.common-place.org/vol-06/no-02/tales/ (accessed 27.08.13).
6. Brik O. Uchit' pisatelei. Literatura Fakta 1929, 180-185. Federatisya, Moscow. N.F. huzhak (Ed.).
7. DeRochi J. A feminine spectacle: the novelistic aesthetic of Matthew Lewis's The Captive. Prologues, Epilogues, Curtain-Raisers, and Afterpieces 2007, 238-252. University of Delaware Press, Newark, DE. D. Ennis, J.B. Slagle (Eds.).
8. Efron B., Tibshirani R.J. An Introduction to the Bootstrap 1994, Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton.
9. Finkel J.R., Grenager T., Manning C. Incorporating non-local information into information extraction systems by Gibbs sampling. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2005, 363-370.
10. Fisher R. The Design of Experiments 1935, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
11. Grieve J. Quantitative authorship attribution: an evaluation of techniques. Literary and Linguistic Computing 2007, 22(3):251-270.
12. Jockers M.L. Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History 2013, University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL.
13. Jockers M.L., Witten D.M. A comparative study of machine learning methods for authorship attribution. Literary and Linguistic Computing 2010, 25(2):215-223.
14. Jockers M.L., Witten D.M., Criddle C.S. Reassessing authorship in the Book of Mormon using nearest shrunken centroid classification. Literary and Linguistic Computing 2008, 23(4):465-491.
15. Koppel M., Argamon S., Shimon A.R. Automatically categorizing written texts by author gender. Literary and Linguistic Computing 2002, 17(4):401-412.
16. McCallum A.K. MALLET: A Machine Learning for Language Toolkit 2002, http://mallet.cs.umass.edu/ (accessed 27.08.13).
17. Mimno D., Blei D. Bayesian checking for topic models. Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) 2011, http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~blei/papers/MimnoBlei2011.pdf (accessed 27.08.13).
18. Reed R.T. Six Months in a Convent, or, The Narrative of Rebecca Theresa Reed, Who Was under the Influence of the Roman Catholics about Two Years, and an Inmate of the Ursuline Convent on Mount Benedict, Charlestown, Mass., Nearly Six Mmonths 1835, 1831-1832. Russell, Odiorne & Metcalf, Boston.
19. Smucker M.D., Allan J., Carterette B. A comparison of statistical significance tests for information retrieval evaluation. Conference on Information and Knowledge Management 2007, 624-632.
20. Tibshirani R., Hastie T., Narasimhan B., Chu G. Class prediction by nearest shrunken centroids, with applications to DNA microarrays. Statistical Science 2003, 18(1):104-117.