Talk:Explicit semantic analysis

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

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)[reply]

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)[reply]