ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
A study in rule-specific issue categorization for e-rulemaking
Full text PdfPdf (492 KB)
Source
dg.o; Vol. 289 archive
Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Digital government research table of contents
Montreal, Canada
SESSION: Research papers and management, case study & policy papers: e-rulemaking and ontologies table of contents
Pages 244-253  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN:978-1-60558-099-9
Authors
Claire Cardie  Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Cynthia Farina  Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Adil Aijaz  Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Matt Rawding  Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Stephen Purpura  Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Sponsors
: Routledge
: Elsevier
: Springer
: Cefrio
NCDG : National Center for Digital Government
Publisher
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 6,   Downloads (12 Months): 33,   Citation Count: 1
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  

ABSTRACT

We address the e-rulemaking problem of categorizing public comments according to the issues that they address. In contrast to previous text categorization research in e-rulemaking [5, 6], and in an attempt to more closely duplicate the comment analysis process in federal agencies, we employ a set of rule-specific categories, each of which corresponds to a significant issue raised in the comments. We describe the creation of a corpus to support this text categorization task and report interannotator agreement results for a group of six annotators. We outline those features of the task and of the e-rulemaking context that engender both a non-traditional text categorization corpus and a correspondingly difficult machine learning problem. Finally, we investigate the application of standard and hierarchical text categorization techniques to the e-rulemaking data sets and find that automatic categorization methods show promise as a means of reducing the manual labor required to analyze large comment sets: the automatic annotation methods approach the performance of human annotators for both flat and hierarchical issue categorization.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
V. Hatzivassiloglou, J. Klavans, and E. Eskin. Detecting Text Similarity over Short Passages: Exploring Linguistic Feature Combinations via Machine Learning. In Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora (EMNLP/VLC-99), pages 203--212, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1999. Association for Computational Linguistics.
 
3
 
4
K. Krippendorff. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd Ed.). Sage Publications, 2004.
5
6
7
8
 
9
D. Silver, G. Bakir, K. Bennett, R. Caruana, M. Pontil, S. Russell, and P. Tadepalli. Inductive Transfer : 10 Years Later. NIPS 2005 Workshop, 2005.
 
10
P. Strauss, T. Rakoff, and C. Farina. Administrative Law. 10th edition, 2003.
 
11
 
12
13
 
14


Collaborative Colleagues:
Claire Cardie: colleagues
Cynthia Farina: colleagues
Adil Aijaz: colleagues
Matt Rawding: colleagues
Stephen Purpura: colleagues