Mining Tweet Data
Statistic and Semantic Information for Political Tweet Classification
Guillaume Tisserant
1
, Mathieu Roche
1,2
and Violaine Prince
1
1
LIRMM, CNRS, Universit
´
e Montpellier 2, 161 Rue Ada, 34090 Montpellier, France
2
TETIS, Cirad, Irstea, AgroParisTech, 500 rue Jean-Franccois Breton, 34093 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
Keywords:
Text Mining, Classification, Tweets.
Abstract:
This paper deals with the quality of textual features in messages in order to classify tweets. The aim of
our study is to show how improving the representation of textual data affects the performance of learning
algorithms. We will first introduce our method GENDESC. It generalizes less relevant words for tweet classi-
fication. Secondly, we compare and discuss the types of textual features given by different approaches. More
precisely we discuss the semantic specificity of textual features, e.g. Named Entities, HashTags.
1 INTRODUCTION
This paper deals with detection of important words
in a document, and how to use them for classifica-
tion. Importance is a notion that is not predefined.
It depends on the task goal and features, as well as
on the user’s intentions. Textual data are extremely
difficult to analyze and classify, according to (Witten
and Frank, 2005). The supervised learning algorithms
require to know the class associated with each docu-
ment (e.g. theme for document classification, polarity
for sentiment analysis, and so forth). The inputs of
these algorithms are ”package” of language features
representing the document to be classified. Once the
learning phase is complete, the trained model can as-
sign a class to a ” package of features ” unlabeled.
The quality of the classification given by the algo-
rithm will therefore depend not only on the quality of
the learning algorithm, but also on how the transmit-
ted data is represented (Guyon and Elisseeff, 2003).
To sketch an overview of the question to be tack-
led, in the first instance, we run a brief survey of the
different research methods description of textual data
suitable for supervised learning. Then, we present
GENDESC, a statistical method to select features to
the purpose of text classification (Section 3). In Sec-
tion 4, we compare information given by GENDESC
with information extracted of tweets with ”seman-
tic” methods. Every new step needs to be confirmed:
Thus, the GENDESC method is evaluated in Section
5, focusing on the quality of its proposed features. Fi-
nally, we draw the current balance of our work and
present some perspectives in Section 6.
2 GENERALISATION OF
TEXTUAL FEATURES
In the abundant literature about text mining, the tra-
ditional method of representation of textual data is
the ”bag of words” model: Words are considered
as features used as inputs in the learning algorithms
(Salton and McGill, 1986). Despite its popularity, this
method has many limitations. First, it highlights a
large number of features : The matrix of features is
larger than the number of terms appearing in the cor-
pus, even though short texts like tweets do not provide
many features per document (Sriram et al., 2010a).
Secondly, it loses all the information related to the
position of the words and their syntactic roles in the
sentence, as well as all the information related to the
context. This information can be sometimes crucial.
Several researchers have stressed the importance
of having more general features than words. Exper-
iments have shown the possibility of using the radi-
cal or the lemma of each word (Porter, 1980), or the
POS-Tag (Gamon, 2004). But these methods are not
satisfactory. Lemma is not an important generaliza-
tion, as generalizing words with lemmas cannot sig-
nificantly decrease the number of features. POS-TAG
is an important generalization which destroys all se-
mantic information. It can be useful for a specific task
like grammatical correction, but is unadapted for ev-
523
Tisserant G., Roche M. and Prince V..
Mining Tweet Data - Statistic and Semantic Information for Political Tweet Classification.
DOI: 10.5220/0005170205230529
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval (SSTM-2014), pages 523-529
ISBN: 978-989-758-048-2
Copyright
c
 2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

ery word in a generic text classification task. For pur-
poses of classification on specific tasks, some studies
like (Joshi and Penstein-Ros
´
e, 2009) propose to gen-
eralize specific words (determined according to their
grammatical role) by substituting a more general fea-
ture and keeping the other in their natural form. In
this kind of method, words are selected to be gener-
alized using information based on their classification
type. GENDESC, our method, is independent of the
classification task. Its goal is to improve the quality
of the classification of textual data, when deprived of
any knowledge on the classification task.
3 GENDESC APPROACH
The approach we propose is in two steps. The first one
determines the grammatical function of each word in
the corpus (Section 3.1). The second step consists in
selecting the words which will be generalized (Sec-
tion 3.2).
3.1 Partial Generalization
The objective of our work is to generalize words
whose POS tag (in its context of appearance) is more
useful than the word itself for the classification task.
A POS tag (i.e. verb, noun, adjective, etc.) is a
class of objects that behave similarly when it comes
to the sentence building. So, replacing a word by its
tag comes to delete a semantic contents and keep the
grammatical role. This task needs to explore a few
tracks to determine the words that must be general-
ized. We start by replacing the words that appear in
few documents by their POS tag. Those that appear
often are deemed relevant for classification and are
directly used as features.
Take for example the corpus of Figure 1. It con-
tains 14 documents, each consisting of a single sen-
tence describing a semantic relationship type (h: hy-
peronym; s: synonym). In this context, the aim of
classification is to predict the relationship associated
to each document (here, sentence). From the exam-
ple in Figure 1, we obtain, for each word, the number
of documents containing it. Actually, the example is
built with short sentences like tweets.
Then, for each word of the sentence, the POS-tag
is computed.
• Example of Sentence:
The molecular data is also sometimes called a gene
clock or evolutionary clock.
This practice of adding minerals to herbal medicine is
known as rasa shastra. (s)
The ellipsis is called wielokropek. (s)
The pancreas is a sort of storage depot for digestive
enzymes. (h)
Walnuts and hickories belong to the family Juglandaceae.
(h)
In both group the anterior tagma is called the ceprhalotho-
rax. (s)
Biochemistery, sometimes called biological chemistery, is
the study of chemical processes in living organisms. (s)
Inhalational anthrax is also known as Wooksorters’ or
Ragpickers’ disease.(s)
Biology is a natural science concerned with the study of
life and living organisms. (h)
This part of biochemistry is often called molecular biology.
(h)
Biological classification belongs to the science of zoologi-
cal systematics. (h)
The philosophy of biology is a subfield of philosophy of
science. (h)
An MT is also known as a Medical Language Specialist or
MLS. (s)
The molecular data is also sometimes called a gene clock
or evolutionary clock. (s)
Stotting, for instance, is a sort of hopping that certain
gazelles do when they sight a predator. (h)
Figure 1: Semantic relationship corpus
Table 1: number of instance of each word.
Word Amount of documents
containing the word
is 12
the 9
of 8
a 6
called 5
biology, science
as, know, or, also 3
study, this, molecular
for, sort 2
• Example of the Previous Sentence Tagged
with PoS:
The/DT molecular/JJ data/NNS is/VBZ also/RB
sometimes/RB called/VBN a/DT gene/NN clock/NN
or/CC evolutionary/JJ clock/NN ./.
In this example, the POS-tags are:
RB: Adverb;
DT: Determiner ;
VB: Verb ;
VBN: Verb, past participle ;
VBZ: Verb, 3rd ps. sing. present ;
NN: Noun ;
JJ: Adjective ;
KDIR2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeDiscoveryandInformationRetrieval
524

Table 2: Generalisation.
word POS-tag Number of feature
documents
which contain
the word
The /DT 9 The
molecular /JJ 2 /JJ
data /NNS 1 /NNS
is /VBZ 12 is
also /RB 3 /RB
sometimes /RB 1 /RB
called /VBN 5 called
a /DT 6 a
gene /NN 1 /NN
clock /NN 1 /NN
or /CC 3 /CC
evolutionary /JJ 1 /JJ
clock /NN 1 /NN
To generalize some words of a sentence, we have
tested some ranking functions which can assign a
value to each word. If this value is smaller than a
threshold, the word is generalized. The function used
in the first example is the number of documents of the
corpus that contains the word. So the threshold rep-
resents a minimum number of documents that must
contain the word.
According to our example, if we consider 4 as a
threshold, all the words that appear in less than 4 doc-
uments will be replaced by their POS-tag found at the
previous step (see Table 2).
The initial sentence of our example, with this
ranking function and a threshold at 4, is generalized
as follows: The /JJ /NNS is /RB /RB called a /NN /NN
/CC /JJ /NN .
We show below the same example with all possi-
ble generalization thresholds.
• threshold at 1 (we do not replace any word): The
molecular data is also sometimes called a gene
clock or evolutionary clock.
• threshold at 2: The molecular /NNS is also /RB
called a /NN /NN or /JJ /NN .
• threshold at 3: The /JJ /NNS is also /RB called a
/NN /NN or /JJ /NN .
• threshold at 4: The /JJ /NNS is /RB /RB called a
/NN /NN /CC /JJ /NN .
• threshold at 6: The /JJ /NNS is /RB /RB /VBN a
/NN /NN /CC /JJ /NN .
• threshold at 7: The /JJ /NNS is /RB /RB /VBN /DT
/NN /NN /CC /JJ /NN .
• threshold at 10: /DT /JJ /NNS is /RB /RB /VBN
/DT /NN /NN /CC /JJ /NN .
• threshold at 13 (all words are replaced by their
POS-tag): /DT /JJ /NNS /VBZ /RB /RB /VBN /DT
/NN /NN /CC /JJ /NN .
We can observe that, before the threshold becomes
too important, the relevant information (for the rela-
tionship type given by the sentence) becomes more
evident than in the full sentence. The less relevant
words are the first to be generalized, and the words
that give the semantic type of the relation (”is” and
”called”) are generalized only when the threshold is
high. From threshold 4 to 6, a ”definition” pattern
appears : ”The X is called a Y”. This pattern is a
strong clue for a semantic relationship between X and
Y, and thus helps classifying the document. Thus, the
question of the threshold value relevance appears: In
section 5 we discuss the definition of different thresh-
olds. Note we can combine this method with a filter
to delete stop-words.
3.2 Ranking Function
In this example, we have tested the DF (Document
Frequency) function, to generalize specific words.
The more present text containing the word in the cor-
pus, the higher its DF. We have tested some other
ranking functions. For each function, we have tested
several thresholds which will be discussed in Section
5.
3.2.1 IDF: Inverse Document Frequency
The IDF function (formula (1)) is the inverse function
of DF (Jones, 1972).
IDF(x) = log
number of documents in the corpus
DF(x)
(1)
The more present a text containing the word is in
the corpus, the lower its IDF is. Thus, the words
with high DF value are those with a low IDF value.
So, words generalized with a low threshold become
those requiring a high threshold to be generalized.
IDF function generalizes common words that appear
in classes, which are therefore not interesting for clas-
sification.
For example, the IDF of the word is, which ap-
pears in many documents (i.e 12 sentences of the cor-
pus of Figure 1) is log(
14
12
) = 0.07 while IDF of word
for is log(
14
2
) = 0.8
3.2.2 TF: Term Frequency
TF is the term frequency in a document (Luhn, 1957).
The more often a term appears in the document, the
MiningTweetData-StatisticandSemanticInformationforPoliticalTweetClassification
525

lower its probability of being generalized. This func-
tion can be interesting because if a word appears
many times in the same document, the word can be
useful to classify documents.
3.2.3 D: Discriminence
The idea of D measure (formula (2)) is that a word
which appears many times in the same class and never
in other classes, is relevant for classification. For ex-
ample, for semantic relationship classification, if a
word appears often in documents that contain syn-
onymy relationship, and never in other documents,
then this word is probably relevant for synonymy re-
lationship identification. D measure (see formula (2))
corresponds to the computation of T F × IDF where
all documents belonging to the same class are consid-
ered as a single document.
D(x) =
nbOccClass(x)
nbOccCorpus(x)
(2)
• nbOccClass(x) is the number of occurrences of
word x in the class that most often contain x
• nbOccCorpus(x) is the number of occurrences of
x in the entire corpus
3.2.4 Combination of Functions
It is possible to combine some functions. For exam-
ple, the combination of the functions D and DF high-
lights words that both appear often and indicate a par-
ticular class.
We can expect than the words with high DF × D
value are relevant for document classification.
Similarly, all functions described above can be
combined together. For example, the function D ×
IDF emphasizes the words that appear rarely and are
distributed very unevenly between classes. T F can be
combined with all other functions. We tested these
different functions with different thresholds. The ef-
ficiency of each function will be discussed in Section
5.
4 ANALYSIS OF FEATURES
GIVEN BY GENDESC
4.1 Linguistic Features and Semantic
Information
Semantic information is very difficult to use in text
classification context, since semantic disambiguation
is an crucial requirement before feeding semantic data
to an automatic process: The meaning of a word is
generally complicated to take into account for learn-
ing algorithms.
But it is the main information used by humans
when they analyze documents. So it is probably the
most important information to use in text processing.
In this paper, we focus on the semantic ”impor-
tance” of a word in a document. The following sub-
sections highlight endogenous (see Section 4.1.1) and
exogenous (see Section 4.1.2) semantic information.
4.1.1 Endogenous Semantic Information
An endogenous method aims at using information
contained in documents. Different approaches
allow the detection of words with high semantic
information (Faure and Nedellec, 1999; Hirano et al.,
2007). Some methods consist of exploiting syntactic
information in order to induce semantic information
(Faure and Nedellec, 1999; B
´
echet et al., 2014). For
instance, all the objects of the verb to eat can be
gathered in a same concept food.
Other approaches use meta data, e.g. labels of
HTML pages. For instance, the title and keyword
labels can highlight significant features.
In social networks (e.g. Twitter) HashTags rep-
resent a semantic information useful for tweet classi-
fication (Conover et al., 2011; Ozdikis et al., 2012;
Costa et al., 2013). HashTags are words highlighted
by people who write tweets. This information can be
considered as keywords. As an example, in 2012,
the HashTag #2012 was used by many people to
precise their tweet concern the presidential election.
Other people use name of their favorite candidate to
highlight their political opinion. Thus, the HashTag
#Obama has been massively used to mark a support
of Barack Obama. Supporters of the republican party
have used #RomneyRyan2012, as a reference to the
candidature of Mitt Romney for the presidential po-
sition and of Paul Ryan for the vice presidential role.
Some HashTags are less explicit, like #Forward2012,
exploited by the Obama campaign.
4.1.2 Exogenous Semantic Information
Exogenous methods rely on external sources of in-
formation to improve analysis of documents (Sriram
et al., 2010b). There is a lot of documents represent-
ing semantic information, e.g., ontologies, lexicons,
semantic networks, and so on. We use the lexical-
semantic network called JeuxDeMots (JDM) (Cham-
berlain et al., 2013). It is based on the serious game
principle in order to construct a large lexical-semantic
KDIR2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeDiscoveryandInformationRetrieval
526

network. JDM is the most important semantic net-
work for the French language. It is totally built by
players.
Moreover, JDM contains a game named Politit to
generate political orientation of words. The construc-
tion of this game is very simple: Words are presented
with six political orientations (i.e. far left, ecologist,
left, center, right, far right). The user has to click
on the orientations having most connections with the
word. The user can skip the word if he considers it
without semantic connection with a political orienta-
tion.
4.2 Comparison of Approaches
We argue that words considered relevant by a sta-
tistical analysis must contain important semantic as-
pects. So the aim of this section is to compare fea-
tures returned by GENDESC (i.e. statistical method)
with approaches using semantic characteristics. More
precisely, we compare words given with D formula,
HastTag, and PolitIt.
We can see in Figure 2 that a high proportion
of HashTag words are considered relevant with
GENDESC. In addition, more than 50% of the words
of PolitIt that appear in the corpus are also considered
relevant with GENDESC.
Figure 2: Venn diagram showing number of common words
in the different information sources.
Experiments of Section 5.2 describe different
types of words (e.g. Person, Location, and so on)
given with the methods (i.e. GENDESC, HashTag,
PolitIt).
5 EXPERIMENTS
5.1 Classification with GENDESC
5.1.1 Experimental Protocole
We chose to tackle a problem of classification in order
to predict a political orientation of a tweet. We have
used a corpus composed of 1500 tweets distributed
between five political parties. The goal is to classify
tweets based on the political party of the user.
In order to check the effectiveness of GEN-
DESC, we tested three different learning algorithms:
Bayesian classification algorithm, decision trees, and
an algorithm based on SVM (Support Vector Ma-
chine). This point will be discussed at the end of this
section 5.
Different functions have been tested to choose
words which must be generalized. We can see that
the quality of a function is almost independent of the
learning algorithm.
Table 3 shows results obtained using NaiveBayes
algorithm with different functions and different gen-
eralization thresholds. We used as baseline a classi-
fication with bag-of-words as features, obtaining an
accuracy of 46.80%.
Function and Threshold
Table 3 shows that only D function is actually rele-
vant for the choice of words which can be general-
ized. Other functions generally provide lower results
than use of bag-of-words such as features, whatever
the threshold. For the D function, the optimal thresh-
old is 0.3.
Table 3: Accuracy according to measures and thresholds.
Threshold 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7
D 46.80 50.24 49.19 47.38
DF 46.32 45.44 43.90 43.70
IDF 47.47 41.95 26.85 25.10
T F 19.62 19.62 19.62 19.62
DF × D 46.32 44.37 43.36 43.22
D × IDF 49.40 35.50 20.13 20.13
T F × D 46.80 46.26 43.22 45.37
T F × IDF 39.66 28.19 22.80 21.95
T F × DF 46.26 45.44 43.83 43.63
Our previous work (Tisserant et al., 2013) con-
firmed the interest of our method for classification
tasks with different corpora.
MiningTweetData-StatisticandSemanticInformationforPoliticalTweetClassification
527

Machine Learning Algorithms
Three algorithms were tested in their version imple-
mented in Weka (Hall et al., 2009) :
• The Bayesian algorithm is NaiveBayes
• The decision tree is C4.5
• The algorithm based on SVM applied is SMO
(Sequential minimum optimization)
These algorithms are used with default parameters
of Weka using cross-validation (10-fold).
Experiments with several learning algorithms
were run, in order to compare their performance.
Table 4 shows the obtained results. SMO has the
best performance and the algorithm based on deci-
sion trees has the lowest performance, whether using
words as features or those obtained with GENDESC.
Table 4: Results obtained with different learning algo-
rithms.
Method GENDESC Bag-of-words
SMO 55.30 52.33
NaiveBayes 50.24 46.80
C4.5 38.52 43.43
5.1.2 HashTag Generation
Another attractive issue of GENDESC concerns the
HashTag generation (Mazzia and Juett, 2011). Since
HashTags are neither registered nor controlled by any
user or group, it is difficult for some users to deter-
mine appropriate HashTags for their tweets (Kywe
et al., 2012). We have first compared the type of
words given by GENDESC with the HashTag of the
corpus, and then, we investigate if words selected
with GENDESC in the corpus can be used as possi-
ble HashTags.
5.2 Types of Features Given with
GENDESC
This section describes the types of features (e.g.,
named entities and HashTags) extracted with differ-
ent systems.
Table 5 has been built with 25 words of each cate-
gory manually annotated. It shows the different types
of words returned with our systems. For example,
data given by PolitIt contain a lot of political organi-
sations.
We have compared the set of named entities given
by the systems with the similarity measure Cosine.
Table 6 presents the obtained results.
Table 5: Word classification in % with :
- Word with highest D value by using GENDESC
- Word most referenced in PolitIt
- HashTag most frequent in the corpus
Approaches GENDESC PolitIt HashTag
Person 16 28 4
Location 28 16 12
Political 4 28 8
Organisation
Non political 8 4 20
Organisation
Other 44 22 56
Table 6: Similarity of different group of words.
Cosine( GENDESC, Politit) 0.73
Cosine( GENDESC, HashTag) 0.90
Cosine(HashTag, Politit) 0.59
Towards HashTag Generation
We show that words selected by people as HashTags
contain important semantic information. Note that
HashTag generation is a totally different task than
classification; This enables to identify semantic infor-
mation in messages.
Table 6 and Figure 2 highlight that ungeneralized
words with GENDESC are close to HashTags. So we
argue these words could be interesting as Hashtags.
To validate this hypothesis, we have studied if words
with high D values are currently used in Twitter as
HashTags.
Table 7: Connexions between hashtags.org, PolitIt, and
GENDESC.
GENDESC PolitIt GENDESC ∩ PolitIt
52% 76% 92%
Table 7 has been built thanks to hashtags.org web-
site
1
. We have taken 25 words for each category in
order to study how many are used more than a hun-
dred time per day on average. Words selected with
GENDESC are words with high D value. PolitIt words
are those which have been attached with one political
party by most of players. Measures have been done
in July 2014, more than two years after the corpus ac-
quisition.
This table shows that more than 50% of words
with high value of D are used as Hashtags. However,
the words that come from PolitIt are more relevant for
Hashtag generation because of the specificities of the
application. Note that the intersection of GENDESC
and PolitIt gets a better result than using PolitIt words.
1
http://www.hashtags.org
KDIR2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeDiscoveryandInformationRetrieval
528

6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE
WORK
In this paper, we proposed a representation of textual
data that improves classification of document meth-
ods by generalizing some features (words) to their
POS category when these words appear as less dis-
criminant for the task. Our results show that this ap-
proach, called GENDESC is appropriate when clas-
sification is at stake, regardless of the nature of its
criteria. We have also demonstrated that D, Discrim-
inence, is a measure that can be relevant to find se-
mantically important words in a corpus. In our future
work, we plan to use semantic information to improve
classification.
In previous work, we proved that n-grams can
be combined with GENDESC to slightly improve the
classification (Tisserant et al., 2013). HashTag can
probably be generated with n-grams of words with
high D value. So we plan to use these n-grams in
order to construct new Hashtags (e.g. kdir 2014 →
#kdir2014). They could be useful to detect Hash-
Tags which combine several concepts associated with
n-grams returned with GENDESC (i.e. n-grams of
words and/or Hashtags). As an example, a lot of
tweets contain both HashTag #Iran and word nuclear,
and they are often close to each other. The system
should detect that #IranNuclear could be an interest-
ing HashTag for all these tweets, which evoke the Ira-
nian nuclear issue. If enough people use the proposed
HashTag, they could follow news about ”Iranian nu-
clear” more easily.
REFERENCES
B
´
echet, N., Chauch
´
e, J., Prince, V., and Roche, M. (2014).
How to combine text-mining methods to validate in-
duced verb-object relations? Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst.,
11(1):133–155.
Chamberlain, J., Fort, K., Kruschwitz, U., Lafourcade, M.,
and Poesio, M. (2013). Using games to create lan-
guage resources: Successes and limitations of the ap-
proach. In The Peoples Web Meets NLP, pages 3–44.
Springer.
Conover, M., Gonc¸alves, B., Ratkiewicz, J., Flammini, A.,
and Menczer, F. (2011). Predicting the political align-
ment of twitter users. In Proceedings of 3rd IEEE
Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom).
Costa, J., Silva, C., Antunes, M., and Ribeiro, B. (2013).
Defining semantic meta-hashtags for twitter classifi-
cation. In Adaptive and Natural Computing Algo-
rithms, pages 226–235. Springer.
Faure, D. and Nedellec, C. (1999). Knowledge acquisition
of predicate argument structures from technical texts
using machine learning: The system asium. In In Pro-
ceedings of EKAW, pages 329–334.
Gamon, M. (2004). Sentiment classification on customer
feedback data: noisy data, large feature vectors, and
the role of linguistic analysis. In Proceedings of COL-
ING ’04.
Guyon, I. and Elisseeff, A. (2003). An introduction to vari-
able and feature selection. The Journal of Machine
Learning Research, 3:1157–1182.
Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reute-
mann, P., and Witten, I. H. (2009). The weka data
mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl.,
11(1):10–18.
Hirano, T., Matsuo, Y., and Kikui, G. (2007). Detecting
semantic relations between named entities in text us-
ing contextual features. In Proceedings of the 45th
Annual Meeting of the ACL on Interactive Poster and
Demonstration Sessions, pages 157–160. Association
for Computational Linguistics.
Jones, K. S. (1972). A statistical interpretation of term
specificity and its application in retrieval. Journal of
Documentation, 28:11–21.
Joshi, M. and Penstein-Ros
´
e, C. (2009). Generalizing de-
pendency features for opinion mining. In Proceedings
of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers,
pages 313–316.
Kywe, S. M., Hoang, T.-A., Lim, E.-P., and Zhu, F.
(2012). On recommending hashtags in twitter net-
works. In Proceedings of the 4th International Con-
ference on Social Informatics, SocInfo’12, pages 337–
350, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer-Verlag.
Luhn, H. P. (1957). A statistical approach to mechanized
encoding and searching of literary information. IBM
J. Res. Dev., 1(4):309–317.
Mazzia, A. and Juett, J. (2011). Suggesting hashtags on
twitter. In EECS 545 Project, Winter Term, 2011. URL
http://www-personal.umich.edu/ amazzia/pubs/545-
final.pdf.
Ozdikis, O., Senkul, P., and Oguztuzun, H. (2012). Seman-
tic expansion of hashtags for enhanced event detec-
tion in twitter. In Proceedings of the 1st International
Workshop on Online Social Systems.
Porter, M. (1980). An algorithm for suffix stripping. Pro-
gram, 14(3):130–137.
Salton, G. and McGill, M. J. (1986). Introduction to Mod-
ern Information Retrieval. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Sriram, B., Fuhry, D., Demir, E., Ferhatosmanoglu, H.,
and Demirbas, M. (2010a). Short text classification
in twitter to improve information filtering. In Pro-
ceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR con-
ference on Research and development in information
retrieval, pages 841–842. ACM.
Sriram, B., Fuhry, D., Demir, E., Ferhatosmanoglu, H.,
and Demirbas, M. (2010b). Short text classification
in twitter to improve information filtering. In Pro-
ceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR con-
ference on Research and development in information
retrieval, pages 841–842. ACM.
Tisserant, G., Roche, M., and Prince, V. (2013). Gendesc :
Vers une nouvelle reprsentation des donnes textuelles.
RNTI.
Witten, I. H. and Frank, E. (2005). Data Mining: Practi-
cal machine learning tools and techniques. Morgan
Kaufmann.
MiningTweetData-StatisticandSemanticInformationforPoliticalTweetClassification
529