EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 78 (2020) SHS Web Conf., 78 (2020) 11007 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 78, 2020
7e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 11007
Number of page(s) 15
Section Ressources et outils pour l'analyse linguistique
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20207811007
Published online 04 September 2020
  1. Bougouin, A. et Boudin, F. (2014). TopicRank: ordonnancement de sujets pour l’extraction automatique de termes-clés In T.A.L., n°55 (1), pp. 45–69. [Google Scholar]
  2. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficent of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 20, no 1, pp. 37–46. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cunningham H., Tablan V., Roberts A. et Bontcheva K. (2013). Getting More Out of Biomedical Documents with GATE’s Full Lifecycle Open Source Text Analytics. PLOS Computational Biology. [Google Scholar]
  4. Daille, B., Jacquey, E., Lejeune, G., Melo, L. et Toussaint, Y. (2016). Ambiguity Diagnosis for Terms in Digital Humanities. Proceedings of Language Ressourrces ans Evaluation Conférence, Portoroz, Slovénie. [Google Scholar]
  5. Da Silva, L. (2010). Extraction semi-automatique d’un vocabulaire savant pour l’indexation automatique. Taln 2010, Université de Montréal et Ecole polytechnique de Montréal, Montréal 19–22 juillet. [Google Scholar]
  6. Davies, M. et Fleiss J. (1982). Measuring agreement for multinominal data. Biometrics, vol. 34, no 4, pp. 1047–1051. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Drouin, P. (2010a). Extracting a bilingual transdisciplanary scientigic Lexicon. Proceeding of eLexilography in the 21st century: new Challenges, new Applications, M. Pacquot et S. Granger (dir.), Louvain: presses Universitaires de Louvain, vol 7, 23–54. [Google Scholar]
  8. Drouin, P. (2010b). From a biligual transdisciplinary scientific Lexicon to bilingual transdisciplinary scientific Collocations. Proceedings on the 14th Euralex International Congress, A Dusktra et T Schonhaim (eds.), Fryske Akademy, Leeuwearden-Ljouwert, 6–10 july. [Google Scholar]
  9. Fort, K. (2012). Les ressources annotées, un enjeu pour l’analyse de contenu: vers une méthodologie de l’annotation manuelle de corpus. Thèse, Université Paris- Nord - Paris XIII, 263p. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hasan, K. S. et Ng., V. (2014). Automatic Keyphrase Extraction: A Survey of the State of the Art. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computatinal Linguistics, pp. 1262–1273. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hatier, S. (2016). Identification et analyse linguistique du lexique scientifique transdisciplinaire. Approche outillée sur un corpus d’articles de recherche en SHS, Thèse de doctorat, Université de Grenoble. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hatier, S., Augustyn, M., Thi Thu, H. T., Rui, Y., Tutin, A. et Jacques, M.-P. (2016). French Cross- disciplinary Scientific Lexicon: Extraction and linguistic Analysis. Proceedings of EURALEX 20115, pp. 357–368. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ide, N. et Romary, L. (2006). Representing linguistic corpora and their annotations. Proceedings of the International Conférence on Language resources and Evaluation, Gène, Italie. [Google Scholar]
  14. Jacques, M.P. et Tutin, A. (2018). Lexique transversal et formules discursives des sciences humaines. ISTE Editions, Collections Scinces Cognitives, 316 pages. [Google Scholar]
  15. Krippendirff, K. (1995). On the Utilitity of Unitizing Continous Data. Sociological Methodology, vol 25. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lommel, A., Melby, A.K., Glenn, N., Hayes, J., Snow, T. (2014). TBX-Min: A Simplified TBX- Based Approach to Representing Bilingual Glossaries. Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, Berlin, Germany. [Google Scholar]
  17. Mathet, Y. et Widlocher, A. (2011). Une approche holiste et unifiée de l’alignement et de la mesure d’accord inter-annotateurs. M. Lafourcade, V. Prince (eds), Actes de la 18e Conférence Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (TALN’11), Montpellier, France, pp 247–258, juin. [Google Scholar]
  18. Melby, A.K. (2015). TBX: A Terminology Exchange Format for the translation and localization Industry. Handbook of Terminology , v. 1, John Benjamins Publishing Compagny. [Google Scholar]
  19. Rocheteau, J. et Daille, B. (2011). TTC TermSuite: A UIMA Application for Multilingual Terminology Extraction from Comparable Corpora. International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, Chiang Mai, Thailand. [Google Scholar]
  20. Romary, L. (2014). TBX goes TEI - Implementing a TBX basic extension for the Text Encoding Initiative guidelines. Terminology and Knowledge Engineering Berlin, German. [Google Scholar]
  21. Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic Part-of-Speech Tagging Using Decision Trees. Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing. [Google Scholar]
  22. Stenetorp P., Pyysalo S., Topi c G., Ohta T., Ananiadou S., et Tsujii J. (2012). BRAT: A Web-based Tool for NLP-assisted Text Annotation. Proceedings of the Demonstrations at the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL ’12, Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, pp 102–107. [Google Scholar]
  23. Text Encoding Initiative, Guidelines, httpsV/tei-c.org/guidelines/[consulté le 16/12/19] [Google Scholar]
  24. Tutin, A. (2007). Modélisation et annotations des collocations: une application au lexique transdisciplinaire des écrits scientifiques. Formaliser les langues avec l’ordinateur: de INTEXà Nooj. Les cahiers de la MSHE - Archive, bases, corpus. Besançon: Presses universitaire de Franche Comté, vol. 8. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tutin, A. et Grosmann F. (2014). L’écrit scientifique: du lexique au discours. Presses Universitaires de Rennes, Collection Rivages linguistiques, 246p, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  26. Véronis, J. (2001). Sense Tagging: does it make sense ? Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference, vol. 13. [Google Scholar]
  27. Widlocher, A. et Mathet, Y. (2012). The GLOZZ platform: a corpus annotation and mining tool. C. Concolato, P. Schmitz (eds), Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Document Engineering (DocEng’12), Paris, France, pp 171–180, septembre. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.