4.6 Article

A term extraction algorithm based on machine learning and comprehensive feature strategy

期刊

NEURAL COMPUTING & APPLICATIONS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00521-023-08960-9

关键词

Term extraction; Comprehensive feature strategy; Rules and statistics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Manual term extraction is similar to literal meaning: A translator browses text, classifies words, and prepares for translation. Terminology, as a centralized carrier of expertise, creation, popularization, and disappearance, dynamically reflects the development and evolution of an industry.
Manual term extraction is similar to literal meaning: A translator browses text, classifies words, and prepares for translation. Terminology, as a centralized carrier of expertise, creation, popularization, and disappearance, dynamically reflects the development and evolution of an industry. The automatic extraction of terminology is a key technology for creating a professional terminology database, and it is also a key topic in the field of natural language processing. The purpose of this paper is to study how to analyse a term extraction algorithm based on machine learning and a comprehensive feature strategy. Focusing on the problems of poor generality and single statistical features of current term extraction algorithms, this paper proposes an improved domain ontology term extraction algorithm based on a comprehensive feature strategy. Moreover, automatic term extraction experiments based on a word-based maximum entropy model and a conditional random field model based on machine learning are conducted in this paper. Its word-based conditional random field model outperforms the maximum entropy model. The experimental results show that the algorithm based on the comprehensive feature strategy improves the accuracy by 8.6% compared with the TF-IDF algorithm and the C-value term extraction algorithm. This algorithm can be used to effectively extract the terms in a text and has good generality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据