Principal components analysis in stylometry.

Principal components analysis (PCA) has been one of the staple methods used in stylometry. In a 2021 article, Pervez Rizvi casts doubt on this method and argues that some widely cited results based on it should be set aside. In the current article, I show that none of Rizvi's theoretical claims or e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Digital Scholarship in the Humanities Vol. 39; no. 1; pp. 97 - 109
Autor principal: Craig, Hugh
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Oxford University Press / USA Apr2024
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=176806341&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 176806341
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        2055768X
        JEO9
      jtl: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities
      issn: 2055768X
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Apr2024
      vid: 39
      iid: 1
      pid: 622
      pub: Oxford University Press / USA
    artinfo:
      ui:
        176806341
        10.1093/llc/fqad083
      ppf: 97
      ppct: 12
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 383KB
      tig:
        atl: Principal components analysis in stylometry.
      aug:
        au: Craig, Hugh
        affil: School of Humanities, Creative Industries and Social Sciences, University of Newcastle , Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia
      su:
        Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616
        Principal components analysis
        Stylometry
      sug:
        subj:
          Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616
          Principal components analysis
          Stylometry
      keyword:
        multivariate methods
        principal component analysis
        Shakespeare
        stylometry
      ab: Principal components analysis (PCA) has been one of the staple methods used in stylometry. In a 2021 article, Pervez Rizvi casts doubt on this method and argues that some widely cited results based on it should be set aside. In the current article, I show that none of Rizvi's theoretical claims or experimental results stand up to examination. Rizvi argues that discarding the principal components beyond the first two makes the method unreliable, but permutation testing of PCAs shows that the top components in these trials are significant and robust, and the results across many experiments show the combination of the first and second component to be effective in classification. Rizvi argues that PCA components must be treated separately, and much of his critique of the PCA method is based on this standpoint, but this is not the practice in the work presented in the publications he cites or in the wider literature. Rizvi is unable to replicate a chart in an article by Craig, but his replication, unlike the original, does not account for the widely varying sizes of samples in his data. The current article shows that Rizvi's claims are misguided and that using PCA in the Burrows tradition to find and formalize authorial discriminations in text samples from plays of the Shakespearean era is efficacious and robust.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: © 2019 EADH: The European Association for Digital Humanities.
      item: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities
      holder: Oxford University Press / USA
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2024
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N