↓ Skip to main content

Cross-Language Opinion Lexicon Extraction Using Mutual-Reinforcement Label Propagation

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cross-Language Opinion Lexicon Extraction Using Mutual-Reinforcement Label Propagation
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0079294
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zheng Lin, Songbo Tan, Yue Liu, Xueqi Cheng, Xueke Xu

Abstract

There is a growing interest in automatically building opinion lexicon from sources such as product reviews. Most of these methods depend on abundant external resources such as WordNet, which limits the applicability of these methods. Unsupervised or semi-supervised learning provides an optional solution to multilingual opinion lexicon extraction. However, the datasets are imbalanced in different languages. For some languages, the high-quality corpora are scarce or hard to obtain, which limits the research progress. To solve the above problems, we explore a mutual-reinforcement label propagation framework. First, for each language, a label propagation algorithm is applied to a word relation graph, and then a bilingual dictionary is used as a bridge to transfer information between two languages. A key advantage of this model is its ability to make two languages learn from each other and boost each other. The experimental results show that the proposed approach outperforms baseline significantly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 27%
Student > Master 2 18%
Student > Postgraduate 2 18%
Researcher 1 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 6 55%
Environmental Science 1 9%
Linguistics 1 9%
Social Sciences 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2013.
All research outputs
#13,700,474
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#110,884
of 194,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,740
of 211,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,762
of 5,129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 211,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.