Which method of text analysis should I use if I need to get a number of multiword keywords, say (up to) 5 per text, analysing a scientific text of some length? In particular, the text could be
a title,
or an abstract.
Preferably a method already scripted on Python.
Thank you!
You could look into keyword extraction, collocation finding or text summarization. Depending on what you want to use it for you could also look into general terminology extraction. These are just some methods, there are also other approaches like topic modeling etc.
Collocation finding/terminology extraction are more about finding domain-specific terminology and require a larger amount of corpora, but they can help to unify the generated tags. Basically you would first run this kind of analysis to find ngrams which are domain-specific and therefore in scientific literature indicative of the topic and in a second step you would mark the occurence of these extracted ngrams in the original texts.
Keyword extraction and text summarization lean more towards being applied to single texts, but obviously the resulting tags are going to be less unified.
It's difficult to say which method makes the most sense for you as this depends on the amount of data you have, the diversity of topics within the data you have, what you are planning to do with the keywords/tags and how much time you want to spend to optimize this extraction.
Related
I have text data from two different groups. In total I have around 4000 text passages with around 300 words.
I am searching for a tool that allows me to analyze the difference between these two groups.
In the best case, this tool can analyze different dimensions, e.g. the length of sentences, usage of superlatives, perspective of the narrator, usage of passive form, clear and objective writing VS hedging and imprecise writing.
In Python, you can use the nltk or spacey packages to process the texts so that you can analyze them (using pandas, for example). But there's not ready-made software (as far as I know) that will do all of that for you. You're going to have to write your own code.
For example, you would create a pandas dataframe with a row for all of the texts, with their group ('A' or 'B' or whatever) as one of the columns and the raw text as the other. Then you use nltk to tokenize the text and do whatever other preprocessing you want to do, storing the clean, tokenized text in another column. Then you can have a column for, for example, sentence length (which you can compute using nltk). From there you'll be able to get the means of the two groups, standard deviation, statistical significance of difference, etc.
It's straightforward for something like sentence length, but the other features you mention are more difficult. What does it mean for a text to be clear and objective, or hedged and imprecise? That means nothing on its own: you have to decide what exactly you mean by that, and what features characterize it. For example, you could make a list of hedgers ('I think', 'may', 'might', 'I'm not sure but', etc.) and then count their frequency in each text.
Something like "perspective of the narrator" might need to be annotated manually, depending on what you mean by it. If you just mean 1st person vs. 3rd person, that could be easy to identify (compare the 'I's vs. the 'he/she's), but anything more subtle than that, I'm not sure how you'd do it.
Good luck with your project!
I am looking into extracting the meaning of expressions used in everyday speaking. For an instance, it is apparent to a human that the sentence The meal we had at restaurant A tasted like food at my granny's. means that the food was tasty.
How can I extract this meaning using a tool or a technique?
The method I've found so far is to first extract phrases using Stanford CoreNLP POS tagging, and use a Word Sense Induction tool to derive the meaning of the phrase. However, as WSI tools are used to get the meaning of words when they have multiple meanings, I am not sure if it would be the best tool to use.
What would be the best method to extract the meanings? Or is there any tool that can both identify phrases and extract their meanings?
Any help is much appreciated. Thanks in advance.
The problem you pose is a difficult one. You should use tools from Sentiment Analysis to get a gist of the sentence emotional message. There are more sophisticated approaches which attempt at extracting what quality is assigned to what object in the sentence (this you can get from POS-tagged sentences + some hand-crafted Information Extraction rules).
However, you may want to also explore paraphrasing the more formal language to the common one and look for those phrases. For that you would need to a good (exhaustive) dictionary of common expressions to start with (there are sometimes slang dictionaries available - but I am not aware of any for English right now). You could then map the colloquial ones to some more formal ones which are likely to be caught by some embedding space (frequently used in Sentiment Analysis).
I am a graduate student focusing on ML and NLP. I have a lot of data (8 million lines) and the text is usually badly written and contains so many spelling mistakes.
So i must go through some text cleaning and vectorizing. To do so, i considered two approaches:
First one:
cleaning text by replacing bad words using hunspell package which is a spell checker and morphological analyzer
+
tokenization
+
convert sentences to vectors using tf-idf
The problem here is that sometimes, Hunspell fails to provide the correct word and changes the misspelled word with another word that don't have the same meaning. Furthermore, hunspell does not reconize acronyms or abbreviation (which are very important in my case) and tends to replace them.
Second approache:
tokenization
+
using some embeddings methode (like word2vec) to convert words into vectors without cleaning text
I need to know if there is some (theoretical or empirical) way to compare this two approaches :)
Please do not hesitate to respond If you have any ideas to share, I'd love to discuss them with you.
Thank you in advance
I post this here just to summarise the comments in a longer form and give you a bit more commentary. No sure it will answer your question. If anything, it should show you why you should reconsider it.
Points about your question
Before I talk about your question, let me point a few things about your approaches. Word embeddings are essentially mathematical representations of meaning based on word distribution. They are the epitome of the phrase "You shall know a word by the company it keeps". In this sense, you will need very regular misspellings in order to get something useful out of a vector space approach. Something that could work out, for example, is US vs. UK spelling or shorthands like w8 vs. full forms like wait.
Another point I want to make clear (or perhaps you should do that) is that you are not looking to build a machine learning model here. You could consider the word embeddings that you could generate, a sort of a machine learning model but it's not. It's just a way of representing words with numbers.
You already have the answer to your question
You yourself have pointed out that using hunspell introduces new mistakes. It will be no doubt also the case with your other approach. If this is just a preprocessing step, I suggest you leave it at that. It is not something you need to prove. If for some reason you do want to dig into the problem, you could evaluate the effects of your methods through an external task as #lenz suggested.
How does external evaluation work?
When a task is too difficult to evaluate directly we use another task which is dependent on its output to draw conclusions about its success. In your case, it seems that you should pick a task that depends on individual words like document classification. Let's say that you have some sort of labels associated with your documents, say topics or types of news. Predicting these labels could be a legitimate way of evaluating the efficiency of your approaches. It is also a chance for you to see if they do more harm than good by comparing to the baseline of "dirty" data. Remember that it's about relative differences and the actual performance of the task is of no importance.
I'm embarking on a project for a non-profit organization to help process and classify 1000's of reports annually from their field workers / contractors the world over. I'm relatively new to NLP and as such wanted to seek the group's guidance on the approach to solve our problem.
I'll highlight the current process, and our challenges and would love your help on the best way to solve our problem.
Current process: Field officers submit reports from locally run projects in the form of best practices. These reports are then processed by a full-time team of curators who (i) ensure they adhere to a best-practice template and (ii) edit the documents to improve language/style/grammar.
Challenge: As the number of field workers increased the volume of reports being generated has grown and our editors are now becoming the bottle-neck.
Solution: We would like to automate the 1st step of our process i.e., checking the document for compliance to the organizational best practice template
Basically, we need to ensure every report has 3 components namely:
1. States its purpose: What topic / problem does this best practice address?
2. Identifies Audience: Who is this for?
3. Highlights Relevance: What can the reader do after reading it?
Here's an example of a good report submission.
"This document introduces techniques for successfully applying best practices across developing countries. This study is intended to help low-income farmers identify a set of best practices for pricing agricultural products in places where there is no price transparency. By implementing these processes, farmers will be able to get better prices for their produce and raise their household incomes."
As of now, our approach has been to use RegEx and check for keywords. i.e., to check for compliance we use the following logic:
1 To check "states purpose" = we do a regex to match 'purpose', 'intent'
2 To check "identifies audience" = we do a regex to match with 'identifies', 'is for'
3 To check "highlights relevance" = we do a regex to match with 'able to', 'allows', 'enables'
The current approach of RegEx seems very primitive and limited so I wanted to ask the community if there is a better way to solving this problem using something like NLTK, CoreNLP.
Thanks in advance.
Interesting problem, i believe its a thorough research problem! In natural language processing, there are few techniques that learn and extract template from text and then can use them as gold annotation to identify whether a document follows the template structure. Researchers used this kind of system for automatic question answering (extract templates from question and then answer them). But in your case its more difficult as you need to learn the structure from a report. In the light of Natural Language Processing, this is more hard to address your problem (no simple NLP task matches with your problem definition) and you may not need any fancy model (complex) to resolve your problem.
You can start by simple document matching and computing a similarity score. If you have large collection of positive examples (well formatted and specified reports), you can construct a dictionary based on tf-idf weights. Then you can check the presence of the dictionary tokens. You can also think of this problem as a binary classification problem. There are good machine learning classifiers such as svm, logistic regression which works good for text data. You can use python and scikit-learn to build programs quickly and they are pretty easy to use. For text pre-processing, you can use NLTK.
Since the reports will be generated by field workers and there are few questions that will be answered by the reports (you mentioned about 3 specific components), i guess simple keyword matching techniques will be a good start for your research. You can gradually move to different directions based on your observations.
This seems like a perfect scenario to apply some machine learning to your process.
First of all, the data annotation problem is covered. This is usually the most annoying problem. Thankfully, you can rely on the curators. The curators can mark the specific sentences that specify: audience, relevance, purpose.
Train some models to identify these types of clauses. If all the classifiers fire for a certain document, it means that the document is properly formatted.
If errors are encountered, make sure to retrain the models with the specific examples.
If you don't provide yourself hints about the format of the document this is an open problem.
What you can do thought, is ask people writing report to conform to some format for the document like having 3 parts each of which have a pre-defined title like so
1. Purpose
Explains the purpose of the document in several paragraph.
2. Topic / Problem
This address the foobar problem also known as lorem ipsum feeling text.
3. Take away
What can the reader do after reading it?
You parse this document from .doc format for instance and extract the three parts. Then you can go through spell checking, grammar and text complexity algorithm. And finally you can extract for instance Named Entities (cf. Named Entity Recognition) and low TF-IDF words.
I've been trying to do something very similar with clinical trials, where most of the data is again written in natural language.
If you do not care about past data, and have control over what the field officers write, maybe you can have them provide these 3 extra fields in their reports, and you would be done.
Otherwise; CoreNLP and OpenNLP, the libraries that I'm most familiar with, have some tools that can help you with part of the task. For example; if your Regex pattern matches a word that starts with the prefix "inten", the actual word could be "intention", "intended", "intent", "intentionally" etc., and you wouldn't necessarily know if the word is a verb, a noun, an adjective or an adverb. POS taggers and the parsers in these libraries would be able to tell you the type (POS) of the word and maybe you only care about the verbs that start with "inten", or more strictly, the verbs spoken by the 3rd person singular.
CoreNLP has another tool called OpenIE, which attempts to extract relations in a sentence. For example, given the following sentence
Born in a small town, she took the midnight train going anywhere
CoreNLP can extract the triple
she, took, midnight train
Combined with the POS tagger for example; you would also know that "she" is a personal pronoun and "took" is a past tense verb.
These libraries can accomplish many other tasks such as tokenization, sentence splitting, and named entity recognition and it would be up to you to combine all of these tools with your domain knowledge and creativity to come up with a solution that works for your case.
I'm writing an Elman Simple Recurrent Network. I want to give it sequences of words, where each word is a sequence of phonemes, and I want a lot of training and test data.
So, what I need is a corpus of English words, together with the phonemes they're made up of, written as something like ARPAbet or SAMPA. British English would be nice but is not essential so long as I know what I'm dealing with. Any suggestions?
I do not currently have the time or the inclination to code something that derives the phonemes a word is comprised of from spoken or written data so please don't propose that.
Note: I'm aware of the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary, but it claims it's only based on the ARPABet symbol set - anyone know if there are actually any differences and if so what they are? (If there aren't any then I could just use that...)
EDIT: CMUPD 0.7a Symbol list - vowels may have lexical stress, and there are variants (of ARPABET standard symbols) indicating this.
CMUdict should be fine. "Arpabet symbol set" just means Arpabet. If there are any minor differences, they should be explained in the CMUdict documentation.
If you need data that's closer to real life than stringing together dictionary pronunciations of individual words, look for phonetically transcribed corpora, e.g., TIMIT.