Identifying content patterns in peer reviews using graph-based cohesion

Proceedings of the 28th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS 2015

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 269-274

  Ramachandran, Lakshmi ^a   Gehringer, Edward F ^b  

^a Pearson Knowledge Technologies   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADHESION; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

CONTENT IDENTIFICATIONS; CONTENT-BASED; EXPERTIZA; F MEASURE; GRAPH-BASED; PEER REVIEW; PEER REVIEWING;

GRAPHIC METHODS;

EID: 84958156052     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Balfour, S. P. 2013. Assessing writing in moocs: automated essay scoring and calibrated peer review. Research & Practice in Assessment 8 (1): 40-48.
2. Blei, D. M.; Ng, A. Y.; and Jordan, M. I. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. the Journal of machine Learning research 3: 993-1022.
3. Bohnet, B. 2010. Very high accuracy and fast dependency parsing is not a contradiction. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 89-97.
4. Chapman, W. W.; Bridewell, W.; Hanbury, P.; Cooper, G. F.; and Buchanan, B. G. 2001. A simple algorithm for identifying negated findings and diseases in discharge summaries. Journal of biomedical informatics 34 (5): 301-310.
5. Cho, K. 2008. Machine classification of peer comments in physics. In Educational Data Mining, 192-196.
6. Coursey, K., and Mihalcea, R. 2009. Topic identification using wikipedia graph centrality. In Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Companion Volume: Short Papers, 117-120.
7. Erkan, G., and Radev, D. R. 2004. Lexrank: graph-based lexical centrality as salience in text summarization. J. Artif. Int. Res. 22: 457-479.
8. Fellbaum, C. 1998. Wordnet: An electronic lexical database. MIT Press 423.
9. Fleiss, J. L.; Cohen, J.; and Everitt, B. 1969. Large sample standard errors of kappa and weighted kappa. Psychological Bulletin 72 (5): 323.
10. Gehringer, E. F. 2010. Expertiza: Managing feedback in collaborative learning. In Monitoring and Assessment in Online Collaborative Environments: Emergent Computational Technologies for E-Learning Support, 75-96.
11. Goldin, I. M., and Ashley, K. D. 2010. Eliciting informative feedback in peer review: Importance of problem-specific scaffolding. In Aleven, V.; Kay, J.; and Mostow, J., eds., Intelligent Tutoring Systems (1), volume 6094 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 95-104. Springer.
12. Harabagiu, S.; Hickl, A.; and Lacatusu, F. 2006. Negation, contrast and contradiction in text processing. In Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 1, 755-762.
13. Liu, B.; Hu, M.; and Cheng, J. 2005. Opinion observer: analyzing and comparing opinions on the web. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on World Wide Web, 342-351.
14. Manshadi, M.; Gildea, D.; and Allen, J. 2013. Plurality, negation, and quantification: Towards comprehensive quantifier scope disambiguation. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-13).
15. Mihalcea, R. 2004. Graph-based ranking algorithms for sentence extraction, applied to text summarization. In Proceedings of the ACL 2004 on Interactive poster and demonstration sessions, ACLdemo.
16. Nelson, M. M., and Schunn, C. D. 2009. The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. In Instructional Science, volume 27, 375-401.
17. Patchan, M.; Charney, D.; and Schunn, C. 2009. A validation study of students end comments: Comparing comments by students, a writing instructor, and a content instructor. Journal of Writing Research 1 (2): 124-152.
18. Radev, D. R.; Jing, H.; Stýs, M.; and Tam, D. 2004. Centroid-based summarization of multiple documents. Information Processing & Management 40 (6): 919-938.
19. Ramachandran, L., and Gehringer, E. F. 2012. A word-order based graph representation for relevance identification (poster). Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management.
20. Ramachandran, L., and Gehringer, E. 2013a. Graph-structures matching for review relevance identification. In Proceedings of TextGraphs-8 Graph-based Methods for Natural Language Processing, 53-60.
21. Ramachandran, L., and Gehringer, E. F. 2013b. A user study on the automated assessment of reviews. In AIED Workshops. Citeseer.
22. Ramachandran, L.; Ravindran, B.; and Gehringer, E. F. 2013. Determining review coverage by extracting topic sentences using a graph-based clustering approach (poster). The 6th International Conference on Educational Data Mining 346-347.
23. Toutanova, K.; Klein, D.; Manning, C. D.; and Singer, Y. 2003. Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. In In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL, 252-259.
24. Tubau, S. 2008. Negative concord in English and Romance: Syntax-morphology interface conditions on the expression of negation. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
25. Xiong, W.; Litman, D. J.; and Schunn, C. D. 2010. Assessing reviewer's performance based on mining problem localization in peer-review data. In EDM, 211-220.