Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Eugenia Giraudy

dblp:183/9836 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
0009-0003-6551-2226ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Information extraction and text analysis · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval › document processing › document analysis › text reuse detection
plagiarism detection
0.212016
The Legislative Influence Detector: Finding Text Reuse in State Legislation · KDD 2016
Information retrieval › document processing › document analysis
text reuse detection
0.212016
The Legislative Influence Detector: Finding Text Reuse in State Legislation · KDD 2016
Computational social science and digital humanities › legal informatics
legislative text analysis
0.112016
The Legislative Influence Detector: Finding Text Reuse in State Legislation · KDD 2016
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Prototype Synthesis for Model Laws
abstract
State legislatures often rely on existing text when drafting new bills.Resource and expertise constraints, which often drive this copying behavior, can be taken advantage of by lobbyists and special interest groups.These groups provide model bills, which encode policy agendas, with the intent that the models become actual law.Unfortunately, model legislation is often opaque to the public-both in source and content.In this paper we present LOBBYBACK, a system that reverse engineers model legislation from observed text.LOBBYBACK identifies clusters of bills which have text reuse and generates "prototypes" that represent a canonical version of the text shared between the documents.We demonstrate that LOBBY-BACK accurately reconstructs model legislation and apply it to a dataset of over 550k bills.
Matthew Burgess, Eugenia Giraudy, Eytan Adar
ACL (1)2
2016 The Legislative Influence Detector: Finding Text Reuse in State Legislation
abstract
State legislatures introduce at least 45,000 bills each year. However, we lack a clear understanding of who is actually writing those bills. As legislators often lack the time and staff to draft each bill, they frequently copy text written by other states or interest groups. However, existing approaches to detect text reuse are slow, biased, and incomplete. Journalists or researchers who want to know where a particular bill originated must perform a largely manual search. Watchdog organizations even hire armies of volunteers to monitor legislation for matches. Given the time-consuming nature of the analysis, journalists and researchers tend to limit their analysis to a subset of topics (e.g. abortion or gun control) or a few interest groups.
Matthew Burgess, Eugenia Giraudy, Julian Katz-Samuels, Joe Walsh, Derek Willis, Lauren Haynes, Rayid Ghani
KDD2