Clustering semantic spaces of suicide notes and newsgroups articles

21Citations
Citations of this article
108Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Historically, suicide risk assessment has relied on question-and-answer type tools. These tools, built on psychometric advances, are widely used because of availability. Yet there is no known tool based on biologic and cognitive evidence. This absence often cause a vexing clinical problem for clinicians who question the value of the result as time passes. The purpose of this paper is to describe one experiment in a series of experiments to develop a tool that combines Biological Markers (Bm) with ThoughtMarkers (Tm), and use machine learning to compute a real-time index for assessing the likelihood repeated suicide attempt in the next six-months. For this study we focus using unsupervised machine learning to distinguish between actual suicide notes and newsgroups. This is important because it gives us insight into how well these methods discriminate between real notes and general conversation.

References Powered by Scopus

Suicide notes: What do they tell us

99Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Emotional content of suicide notes.

38Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Suicide notes in India: What do they tell us?

36Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Crowdsourcing a word-emotion association lexicon

1839Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Using hashtags to capture fine emotion categories from tweets

286Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Machine classification and analysis of suicide-related communication on Twitter

120Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Matykiewicz, P., Duch, W., & Pestian, J. (2009). Clustering semantic spaces of suicide notes and newsgroups articles. In BioNLP 2009 - Biomedical Natural Language Processing Workshop, BioNLP 2009 - held in conjunction with 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2009 - Proceedings (pp. 179–184). Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). https://doi.org/10.3115/1572364.1572389

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 35

60%

Researcher 15

26%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

10%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 40

73%

Linguistics 8

15%

Social Sciences 4

7%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3

5%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free