3 ms·
This is correct, however, it does not eliminate the value of citation polarity; citation polarity must be seen relative to the rhetorical zone type in which it
by jll29 4y ago
This is correct, however, it does not eliminate the value of citation polarity; citation polarity must be seen relative to the rhetorical zone type in which it occurs: the parent's examples are valid, but typically limited to zone type BACKGROUND ( https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sht25/thesis/t.pdf https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sht25/thesis/t.pdf ), where the related work is described, and often differentiated from one's own work.
- sdenton4 4y agoYah.... I think this kind of semantic ambiguity and complexity points to 90% of the information content of the citation being the existence of the citation. After all, I wouldn't bother calling someone a dolt if their paper was actually insignificant.
- jll29 4y agoHere's the latest research (including downloadable data if you want to play) about citation polarity: http://jurgens.people.si.umich.edu/citation-function/ http://jurgens.people.si.umich.edu/citation-function/