Abstract
AbstractThis chapter details the first component of person-oriented framing analysis: target concept analysis. This component aims to find and resolve mentions of persons, which can be subject to media bias. The chapter introduces and discusses two approaches for this task. First, the chapter introduces an approach for event extraction. The approach extracts answers to the journalistic 5W1H questions, i.e., who did what, when, where, why, and how. The in-text answers to these questions describe a news article’s main event. Afterward, the chapter introduces an approach that is the first to resolve highly context-dependent coreferences across news articles as they commonly occur in the presence of sentence-level bias forms. Our approach can resolve mentions that are coreferential also only in coverage on the same event and that otherwise may even be contradictory, such as “attack” or “self-defense” and “riot” or “protest.” Lastly, the chapter argues for using the latter approach for the target concept analysis component, in particular because of its high classification performance. Another reason for our decision is that using the event extraction approach in the target concept analysis component would require the development of a subsequent approach, i.e., to compare the events extracted from individual articles and resolve them across all articles.
Funder
Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften
Publisher
Springer Nature Switzerland
Reference90 articles.
1. Agence France-Presse. Taliban attacks German consulate in northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif with truck bomb. London, UK, 2016. url: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/10/taliban-attack-german-consulatein-northern-afghan-city-of-mazar/ (visited on 02/15/2021).
2. Charu C. Aggarwal and Jiawei Han. Frequent Pattern Mining. Ed. by Charu C.Aggarwal and Jiawei Han. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2014. isbn: 978-3-319-07820-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07821-2. arXiv: arXiv: 1011.1669v3. url: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-07821-2.
3. Berfin Aktas, Tatjana Scheffler, and Manfred Stede. “Coreference in English OntoNotes: Properties and Genre Differences”. In: Text, Speech, and Dialogue (TSD). Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 171–184. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27947-9_15. url: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-27947-9_15.
4. Nabiha Asghar. “Automatic Extraction of Causal Relations from Natural LanguageTexts:AComprehensive Survey”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.07895 (May 2016). arXiv: 1605.07895. url: http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.07895.
5. Shany Barhom et al. “Revisiting Joint Modeling of Cross-document Entity and Event Coreference Resolution”. In: Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019, pp. 4179–4189. doi: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1409. url: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P19-1409.