- Professional Homepage: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~gh/
- DBLP Author Page: http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/h/Hirst:Graeme.html
- Google Scholar Author Page: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VGdVdjwAAAAJ
- (Budanitsky et al., 2006) ⇒ Alexander Budanitsky, and Graeme Hirst. (2006). “Evaluating WordNet-based Measures of Lexical Semantic Relatedness.” In: Computational Linguistics Journal, 32(1). doi:10.1162/coli.2006.32.1.13
- (Hirst, 2006) ⇒ Graeme Hirst. (2006). “Views of Text-Meaning in Computational Linguistics: Past, present, and future.” In: Computing, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science; Edited by G. Dodig-Crnkovic and S. Stuart.
- (Mohammad & Hirst, 2006) ⇒ Saif Mohammad, and Graeme Hirst. (2006). “Determining Word Sense Dominance Using a Thesaurus.” In: Proceedings of EACL-2006 (EACL 2006).
- (Graham et al., 2005) ⇒ N. Graham, Graeme Hirst, and B. Marthi. (2005). “Segmenting a Document by Stylistic Character.” In: Natural Language Engineering.
- (Budanitsky & Hirst, 2001) ⇒ Alexander Budanitsky, and Graeme Hirst. (2001). “Semantic Distance in WordNet: An experimental, application-oriented evaluation of five measures.” In: Proceedings of the Workshop on WordNet and Other Lexical Resources at NAACL 2001.
- Subject Headings: Lexical Semantic Similarity Measure, Resnik Similarity, Hirst — St-Onge Similarity, Leacock Chodorow Similarity, Jiang-Conrath Similarity, Lin Similarity.
- ABSTRACT: Five different proposed measures of similarity or semantic distance in WordNet were experimentally compared by examining their performance in a real-word spelling correction system. It was found that Jiang and Conrath’smeasure gave the best results overall. That of Hirst and St-Onge seriously over-related, that of Resnik seriously under-related, and those of Lin and of Leacock and Chodorow fell in between.
- Cited by: ~542 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Semantic+distance+in+WordNet%22+2001
- (Hirst, 2000) ⇒ Graeme Hirst. (2000). “Context as a Spurious Concept.” In: Proceedings of CICLING Conference (CICLING 2000).
- QUOTE: … it is becoming clear that while the knowledge used in interpreting natural language is broad, the reasoning is shallow. Although we can’t yet characterize it precisely, it seems to be pretty much limited to reasoning about quite simple commonsense knowledge: knowledge of kinds, of associations, of typical situations, and even typical utterances.
- (Hirst & St-Onge, 1998) ⇒ Graeme Hirst, and David St-Onge. (1998). “Lexical Chains as Representations of Context for the Detection and Correction of Malapropisms.” In: Christiane Fellbaum (editor). “WordNet: An electronic lexical database”, MIT Press.
- (Morris & Hirst, 1991) ⇒ J. Morris, and Graeme Hirst. (1991). “Lexical Cohesion Computed by Thesaural Relations as an Indicator of the Structure of Text.” In: Computational Linguistics, 17.
- (Hirst, 1981) ⇒ Graeme Hirst. (1981). “Anaphora in Natural Language Understanding: A Survey.” Springer-Verlag. ISBN:0387108580