An evaluation of authorship attribution using random forests
2015 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Research, ICTRC 2015, Page: 68-71
2015
- 16Citations
- 27Usage
- 27Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations16
- Citation Indexes16
- 16
- CrossRef1
- Usage27
- Abstract Views27
- Captures27
- Readers27
- 27
Conference Paper Description
Electronic text (e-text) stylometry aims at identifying the writing style of authors of electronic texts, such as electronic documents, blog posts, tweets, etc. Identifying such styles is quite attractive for identifying authors of disputed e-text, identifying their profile attributes (e.g. gender, age group, etc), or even enhancing services such as search engines and recommender systems. Despite the success of Random Forests, its performance has not been evaluated on Author Attribtion problems. In this paper, we present an evaluation of Random Forests in the problem domain of Authorship Attribution. Additionally, we have taken advantage of Random Forests' robustness against noisy features by extracting a diverse set of features from evaluated e-texts. Interestingly, the resultant model achieved the highest classification accuracy in all problems, except one where it misclassified only a single instance.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84944096390&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ictrc.2015.7156423; http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7156423/; http://xplorestaging.ieee.org/ielx7/7143313/7156393/07156423.pdf?arnumber=7156423; https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworkspost2013/1012; https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2013&context=ecuworkspost2013
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know