Researcher profile

Taku Onodera

Taku Onodera contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
5topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2024arXiv

A statistical significance testing approach for measuring term burstiness with applications to domain-specific terminology extraction

A term in a corpus is said to be ``bursty'' (or overdispersed) when its occurrences are concentrated in few out of many documents. In this paper, we propose Residual Inverse Collection Frequency (RICF), a statistical significance test inspired heuristic for quantifying term burstiness. The chi-squared test is, to our knowledge, the sole test of statistical significance among existing term burstiness measures. Chi-squared test term burstiness scores are computed from the collection frequency statistic (i.e., the proportion that a specified term constitutes in relation to all terms within a corpus). However, the document frequency of a term (i.e., the proportion of documents within a corpus in which a specific term occurs) is exploited by certain other widely used term burstiness measures. RICF addresses this shortcoming of the chi-squared test by virtue of its term burstiness scores systematically incorporating both the collection frequency and document frequency statistics. We evaluate the RICF measure on a domain-specific technical terminology extraction task using the GENIA Term corpus benchmark, which comprises 2,000 annotated biomedical article abstracts. RICF generally outperformed the chi-squared test in terms of precision at k score with percent improvements of 0.00% (P@10), 6.38% (P@50), 6.38% (P@100), 2.27% (P@500), 2.61% (P@1000), and 1.90% (P@5000). Furthermore, RICF performance was competitive with the performances of other well-established measures of term burstiness. Based on these findings, we consider our contributions in this paper as a promising starting point for future exploration in leveraging statistical significance testing in text analysis.

preprint2018arXiv

A Preferential Attachment Paradox: How Preferential Attachment Combines with Growth to Produce Networks with Log-normal In-degree Distributions

Every network scientist knows that preferential attachment combines with growth to produce networks with power-law in-degree distributions. How, then, is it possible for the network of American Physical Society journal collection citations to enjoy a log-normal citation distribution when it was found to have grown in accordance with preferential attachment? This anomalous result, which we exalt as the preferential attachment paradox, has remained unexplained since the physicist Sidney Redner first made light of it over a decade ago. Here we propose a resolution. The chief source of the mischief, we contend, lies in Redner having relied on a measurement procedure bereft of the accuracy required to distinguish preferential attachment from another form of attachment that is consistent with a log-normal in-degree distribution. There was a high-accuracy measurement procedure in use at the time, but it would have have been difficult to use it to shed light on the paradox, due to the presence of a systematic error inducing design flaw. In recent years the design flaw had been recognised and corrected. We show that the bringing of the newly corrected measurement procedure to bear on the data leads to a resolution of the paradox.