↓ Skip to main content

Computing symmetrical strength of N-grams: a two pass filtering approach in automatic classification of text documents

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Computing symmetrical strength of N-grams: a two pass filtering approach in automatic classification of text documents
Published in
SpringerPlus, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2573-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deepak Agnihotri, Kesari Verma, Priyanka Tripathi

Abstract

The contiguous sequences of the terms (N-grams) in the documents are symmetrically distributed among different classes. The symmetrical distribution of the N-Grams raises uncertainty in the belongings of the N-Grams towards the class. In this paper, we focused on the selection of most discriminating N-Grams by reducing the effects of symmetrical distribution. In this context, a new text feature selection method named as the symmetrical strength of the N-Grams (SSNG) is proposed using a two pass filtering based feature selection (TPF) approach. Initially, in the first pass of the TPF, the SSNG method chooses various informative N-Grams from the entire extracted N-Grams of the corpus. Subsequently, in the second pass the well-known Chi Square (χ(2)) method is being used to select few most informative N-Grams. Further, to classify the documents the two standard classifiers Multinomial Naive Bayes and Linear Support Vector Machine have been applied on the ten standard text data sets. In most of the datasets, the experimental results state the performance and success rate of SSNG method using TPF approach is superior to the state-of-the-art methods viz. Mutual Information, Information Gain, Odds Ratio, Discriminating Feature Selection and χ(2).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 9 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 7 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,379,760
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#935
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,767
of 351,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#123
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 351,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.