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

Alexandra Kinyon

dblp:55/1127 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2003
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 4 first-author

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
3 papers
Information extraction and text analysis · 61% Language models and text generation · 39%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Compilers and program optimization · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
syntactic parsing
0.122001
A Language-Independent Shallow-Parser Compiler · ACL 2001
Parsing preferences with Lexicalized Trey Adjoining Grammars exploiting the derivation tree · ACL 1999
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › syntactic parsing › grammar-based parsing
lexical-functional grammar
0.012003
Generating Parallel Multilingual LFG-TAG Grammars from a MetaGrammar · ACL 2003
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › grammar formalisms
tree adjoining grammar
0.012003
Generating Parallel Multilingual LFG-TAG Grammars from a MetaGrammar · ACL 2003
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › syntactic parsing
chunking
0.012001
A Language-Independent Shallow-Parser Compiler · ACL 2001
Compilers and program optimization › parsing
parser generation
0.012001
A Language-Independent Shallow-Parser Compiler · ACL 2001

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

rule-based parsing · 0.1finite-state methods · 0.1metagrammar · 0.0grammar modularity · 0.0derivation tree · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2003 Generating Parallel Multilingual LFG-TAG Grammars from a MetaGrammar
abstract
We introduce a MetaGrammar, which allows us to automatically generate, from a single and compact MetaGrammar hierarchy, parallel Lexical Functional Grammars (LFG) and Tree-Adjoining Grammars (TAG) for French and for English: the grammar writer specifies in compact manner syntactic properties that are potentially framework-, and to some extent language-independent (such as subcategorization, valency alternations and realization of syntactic functions), from which grammars for several frameworks and languages are automatically generated offline.
Lionel Clément, Alexandra Kinyon
ACL2
2002 Identifying Verb Arguments and their Syntactic Function in the Penn Treebank
Alexandra Kinyon, Carlos Augusto Prolo
LREC1
2001 A Language-Independent Shallow-Parser Compiler
abstract
We present a rule--based shallow--parser compiler, which allows to generate a robust shallow-parser for any language, even in the absence of training data, by resorting to a very limited number of rules which aim at identifying constituent boundaries. We contrast our approach to other approaches used for shallow--parsing (i.e. finite-state and probabilistic methods). We present an evaluation of our tool for English (Penn Treebank) and for French (newspaper corpus "LeMonde") for several tasks (NP-chunking & "deeper" parsing).
Alexandra Kinyon
ACL1
2000 Hypertags
Alexandra Kinyon
COLING1
2000 Building a Treebank for French
Anne Abeillé, Lionel Clément, Alexandra Kinyon
LREC3
1999 Parsing preferences with Lexicalized Trey Adjoining Grammars exploiting the derivation tree
abstract
Since Kimball (73) parsing preference principles such as "Right association" (RA) and "Minimal attachment" (MA) are often formulated with respect to constituent trees. We present 3 preference principles based on "derivation trees" within the framework of LTAGs. We argue they remedy some shortcomings of the former approaches and account for widely accepted heuristics (e.g. argument/modifier, idioms...).
Alexandra Kinyon
ACL1