EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 78 (2020) SHS Web Conf., 78 (2020) 11008 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 78, 2020
7e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 11008
Number of page(s) 17
Section Ressources et outils pour l'analyse linguistique
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20207811008
Published online 04 September 2020
  1. Chinchor, N., & Marsh, E. (1998). MUC-7 information extraction task definition (version 5.1). In Proceedings of the 7th Message Understanding Conference (MUC) [Google Scholar]
  2. Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L., (1994). Présentation: l’évidentialité ou le marquage des sources du savoir. Langue française (102), pp. 3–7 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gaio, M., & Moncla, L. (2019). Geoparsing and geocoding places in a dynamic space context. The Semantics of Dynamic Space in French: Descriptive, experimental and formal studies on motion expression, 66, 353. [Google Scholar]
  4. Gravier, G., Bonastre, J., & Geoffrois, E. (2004). Ester, une campagne d’évaluation des systèmes d’indexation automatique d’émissions radiophoniques en français. Actes de JEP-TALN [Google Scholar]
  5. Heiden, S. (2010). « The TXM Platform: Building Open-Source Textual Analysis Software Compatible with the TEI Encoding Scheme », in 24th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, Sendai, Japon: ENS-Lyon, p. 10 p. http://halshs.archives- ouvertes.fr/docs/00/54/97/64/PDF/paclic24_sheiden.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  6. Longrée, D., & Mellet, S. (2013). Le motif: une unité phraséologique englobante ? Étendre le champ de la phraséologie de la langue au discours. Langages (189), pp.65–79 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Makhoul, J., Kubala, F., Schwartz, R., & Weischedel, R. (1999). Performance measures for information extraction. In Proceedings of DARPA broadcast news workshop, pp. 249–252. [Google Scholar]
  8. Maurel, D., Friburger, N., Antoine, J.Y., Eshkol, I., & Nouvel, D. (2011). Cascades de transducteurs autour de la reconnaissance des entités nommées, Traitement automatique des langues 52, 69 [Google Scholar]
  9. McDonald, D.D. (1996). Internal and external evidence in the identification and semantic categorization of proper names. In Corpus processing for lexical acquisition, pp 21–39 [Google Scholar]
  10. McDonough, K., Moncla, L., & van de Camp, M. (2019). Named entity recognition goes to old regime france: geographic text analysis for early modern french corpora. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 33 (12), pp. 2498–2522 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Moncla, L., & Gaio, M. (2018). Services web pour l’annotation sémantique d’information spatiale à partir de corpus textuels. Revue Internationale de Géomatique (28), 439 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Moncla, L., Gaio, M., Nogueras-Iso, J., & Mustière, S. (2016). Reconstruction of itineraries from annotated text with an informed spanning tree algorithm, International Journal of Geographical Information Science 30, 1137 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Moncla, L., McDonough, K., Vigier, D., Joliveau, T., & Brenon, A. (2019). Toponym disambiguation in historical documents using network analysis of qualitative relationships. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Geospatial Humanities, pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  14. Moncla, L., Renteria-Agualimpia, W., Nogueras-Iso, J., & Gaio, M. (2014). Geocoding for Texts with Fine-grain Toponyms: An Experiment on a Geoparsed Hiking Descriptions Corpus. In Proceedings of the 22Nd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, pp.183–192 [Google Scholar]
  15. Nadeau, N., & Sekine, S. (2007). A survey of named entity recognition and classification, Lingvisticae Investigationes, 30, 3 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Nobata, C., Sekine, S., Isahara, H., & Grishman, R. (2002). Summarization System Integrated with Named Entity Tagging and IE pattern Discovery. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), pp. 1742–1745 [Google Scholar]
  17. Pirovani, J., Alves, J., Spalenza, M., Silva, W., da Silveira Colombo, C., & Oliveira, E. (2009) Adapting NER (CRF+LG) for Many Textual Genres. In Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the spanish society for natural language processing, pp. 421–433. [Google Scholar]
  18. Poibeau, T. (2005). Sur le statut référentiel des entités nommées, in Conférence Traitement Automatique des Langues, pp. 173–183 [Google Scholar]
  19. Sekine, S., & Eriguchi, Y. (2000). Japanese named entity extraction evaluation: analysis of results. In Proceedings of the 18th conference on Computational linguistics. Volume 2 (ACL), pp.1106—1110 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Sundheim, B.M. (2005). Overview of results of the MUC-6 evaluation. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Message Understanding (ACL), pp. 13–31 [Google Scholar]
  21. Yannick Mathieu, Y. (2003). La grammaire de construction, Linx. Revue des linguistes de l’université ParisXNanterre, (48), pp. 43–56 [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.