Talk:Explicit semantic analysis

Literature review

• Gabrilovich 2006 cited 241 times (all counts per google scholar)
• Gabrilovich 2007 cited 910 times
• Anderka 2009 cited 25 times
• Gottron 2011 cited 11 times
• Potthast 2008 cited 105 times

The article's notability as currently constituted relies on Gabrilovich 2006; 241 cites (in my opinion) is sufficient to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Is ESA limited to using Wikipedia?

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explicit semantic analysis, User:The Transhumanist complains that

The article erroneously defines the subject as being Wikipedia-specific. A Google search quickly verifies that ESA is a generic term, and is not limited to a particular corpus. The webpage http://regularlyexpressed.com/using-explicit-semantic-analysis-to-discover-meaningful-relatedness/, presents a generic definition [...]

It's interesting to see that that blog post actually still resorts to Wikipedia in the end, and most of the papers on ESA use it as well, including recent ones such as Egozi 2011, even though this isn't made explicit in the abstract or introduction. A paper that doesn't (Anderka and Stein) is cited, but I've yet to see any practical work based on ESA that uses a different knowledge base (Anderka and Stein use Reuters to show that one of the assumptions made in the original ESA formulation is incorrect and link it to older methods, but it would seem that they destroy the explicitness and inspectability of the model in the process). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I found it myself: an early version used the Open Directory Project instead of Wikipedia. I'm amending the article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for the edit! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)