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

Janet Hitzeman

dblp:47/85 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
11ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2008
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 8 · 2 first-authorHuman-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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.

Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Information extraction and text analysis · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › coreference resolution
bridging resolution
0.012004
Learning to Resolve Bridging References · ACL 2004
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
coreference resolution
0.012004
Learning to Resolve Bridging References · ACL 2004
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › discourse analysis › discourse processing
centering theory
0.012000
Specifying the Parameters of Centering Theory: a Corpus-Based Evaluation using Text from Application-Oriented Domains · ACL 2000
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › discourse analysis › discourse processing
discourse interpretation
0.012000
Specifying the Parameters of Centering Theory: a Corpus-Based Evaluation using Text from Application-Oriented Domains · ACL 2000

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

wordnet · 0.0machine learning · 0.0google · 0.0corpus annotation · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2008 A Corpus for Cross-Document Co-reference
David Day, Janet Hitzeman, Michael L. Wick, Keith Crouch, Massimo Poesio
LREC2
2008 SpatialML: Annotation Scheme, Corpora, and Tools
Inderjeet Mani, Janet Hitzeman, Justin Richer, Dave Harris, Rob Quimby, Ben Wellner
LREC2
2007 Research Paper: Rapidly Retargetable Approaches to De-identification in Medical Records
abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper describes a successful approach to de-identification that was developed to participate in a recent AMIA-sponsored challenge evaluation. METHOD: Our approach focused on rapid adaptation of existing toolkits for named entity recognition using two existing toolkits, Carafe and LingPipe. RESULTS: The "out of the box" Carafe system achieved a very good score (phrase F-measure of 0.9664) with only four hours of work to adapt it to the de-identification task. With further tuning, we were able to reduce the token-level error term by over 36% through task-specific feature engineering and the introduction of a lexicon, achieving a phrase F-measure of 0.9736. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to achieve good performance on the de-identification task by the rapid retargeting of existing toolkits. For the Carafe system, we developed a method for tuning the balance of recall vs. precision, as well as a confidence score that correlated well with the measured F-score.
Ben Wellner, Matt Huyck, Scott A. Mardis, John S. Aberdeen, Alexander A. Morgan, Leonid Peshkin, Alexander S. Yeh, Janet Hitzeman, Lynette Hirschman
J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc.8
2006 Maytag: A Multi-Staged Approach to Identifying Complex Events in Textual Data
Conrad Chang, Lisa Ferro, John Gibson, Janet Hitzeman, Suzi Lubar, Justin Palmer, Sean A. Munson, Marc B. Vilain, Ben Wellner
EACL4
2006 Using Dialogue Features to Predict Trouble During Collaborative Learning
Bradley A. Goodman, Frank Linton, Robert Gaimari, Janet Hitzeman, Helen Ross, Guido Zarrella
User Model. User Adapt. Interact.4
2005 Using Dialogue Features to Predict Trouble During Collaborative Learning
Bradley A. Goodman, Frank Linton, Robert Gaimari, Janet Hitzeman, Helen Ross, Guido Zarrella
User Model. User Adapt. Interact.4
2004 Learning to Resolve Bridging References
abstract
We use machine learning techniques to find the best combination of local focus and lexical distance features for identifying the anchor of mereological bridging references.We find that using first mention, utterance distance, and lexical distance computed using either Google or WordNet results in an accuracy significantly higher than obtained in previous experiments.
Massimo Poesio, Rahul Mehta 0001, Axel Maroudas, Janet Hitzeman
ACL4
2004 Centering: A Parametric Theory and Its Instantiations
abstract
Centering theory is the best-known framework for theorizing about local coherence and salience; however, its claims are articulated in terms of notions which are only partially specified, such as “utterance,” “realization,” or “ranking.” A great deal of research has attempted to arrive at more detailed specifications of these parameters of the theory; as a result, the claims of centering can be instantiated in many different ways. We investigated in a systematic fashion the effect on the theory's claims of these different ways of setting the parameters. Doing this required, first of all, clarifying what the theory's claims are (one of our conclusions being that what has become known as “Constraint 1” is actually a central claim of the theory). Secondly, we had to clearly identify these parametric aspects: For example, we argue that the notion of “pronoun” used in Rule 1 should be considered a parameter. Thirdly, we had to find appropriate methods for evaluating these claims. We found that while the theory's main claim about salience and pronominalization, Rule 1—a preference for pronominalizing the backward-looking center (CB)—is verified with most instantiations, Constraint 1–a claim about (entity) coherence and CB uniqueness—is much more instantiation-dependent: It is not verified if the parameters are instantiated according to very mainstream views (“vanilla instantiation”), it holds only if indirect realization is allowed, and is violated by between 20% and 25% of utterances in our corpus even with the most favorable instantiations. We also found a trade-off between Rule 1, on the one hand, and Constraint 1 and Rule 2, on the other: Setting the parameters to minimize the violations of local coherence leads to increased violations of salience, and vice versa. Our results suggest that “entity” coherence—continuous reference to the same entities—must be supplemented at least by an account of relational coherence.
Massimo Poesio, Rosemary Stevenson, Barbara Di Eugenio, Janet Hitzeman
Comput. Linguistics4
2000 Specifying the Parameters of Centering Theory: a Corpus-Based Evaluation using Text from Application-Oriented Domains
abstract
The definitions of the basic concepts, rules, and constraints of centering theory involve underspecified notions such as 'previous utterance', 'realization', and 'ranking'. We attempted to find the best way of defining each such notion among those that can be annotated reliably, and using a corpus of texts in two domains of practical interest. Our main result is that trying to reduce the number of utterances without a backward-looking center (CB) results in an increased number of cases in which some discourse entity, but not the CB, gets pronominalized, and viceversa.
Massimo Poesio, Hua Cheng 0001, Renate Henschel, Janet Hitzeman, Rodger Kibble, Rosemary Stevenson
ACL4
1998 On the use of automatically generated discourse-level information in a concept-to-speech synthesis system
abstract
This paper describes the latest version of the SOLE concept-tospeech system, which uses linguistic information provided by a natural language generation system to improve the prosody of synthetic speech. We discuss the types of linguistic information that prove most useful and the implications for text-to-speech systems. 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of the SOLE project is to make use of automaticallygenerated, high-level linguistic information to improve the quality of the intonation of synthetic speech. After choosing an initial set of linguistic constructs thought to have some influence on prosody, we developed an SGML-based mark-up language to serve as a general interface between NLG and speech synthesis systems, and trained our synthesis system to recognise correlations between the mark-up and intonational contours so that it can make use of this mark-up when synthesising. As a result, many of the errors that the synthesiser makes with regard to knowing when to accent or deaccent ...
Janet Hitzeman, Alan W. Black, Paul Taylor 0001, Chris Mellish, Jon Oberlander
ICSLP1
1995 Algorithms for Analysing the Temporal Structure of Discourse
Janet Hitzeman, Marc Moens, Claire Grover
EACL1