–title($sim\_contextTitle$), and context–introduction ($sim\_contextConcl$).

We turn to the context-based features. First, we focus on the features that consider the relation between the citation and the citation context:

1.  Context-based features

    1.  contextMeta\_authorMentioned

    2.  contextMeta\_appearAlone

    3.  contextMeta\_appearFirst

In this group, $contextMeta\_authorMentioned$ has the highest correlation coefficient. This feature indicates whether the names of the authors appear in the citation context (e.g., “Smith et al. \[4\]”).

The second group of context-based features are based on the meaning of the words in the citation context:

1.  Context-based features

    1.  contextLex\_relevant

    2.  contextLex\_recent

    3.  contextLex\_extreme

    4.  contextLex\_comparative

    5.  contextLexOsg\_wnPotency

    6.  contextLexOsg\_wnEvaluative

    7.  contextLexOsg\_wnActivity

    8.  contextLexOsg\_giPotency

    9.  contextLexOsg\_giEvaluative

    10. contextLexOsg\_giActivity

    11. contextLexEmo\_emo

    12. contextLexEmo\_polarity

We used several different types of lexicons to capture different aspects of semantics in the citation contexts, including sentiment, emotion, and  semantic differential categories.

As we mentioned in the preceding section, $contextLexEmo\_polarity$ is the number of words in the citation context that are labeled either positive or negative and $contextLexEmo\_emo$ is the number of words that are labeled with any of the eight basic emotions. Our hope was that any kind of sentiment or emotion in the words in the citation context might indicate that the citation is influential, even if the sentiment or emotion is negative, but Figure \[fig:correlation\] shows that neither feature has a high correlation with the gold labels. This suggests to us that it might be better to split these features into more specific features for each of the possible categories.

To test this idea, we split $contextLexEmo\_polarity$ into two features, one for positive polarity and one for negative
– title($sim\_contextTitle$), and context – introduction ($ sim\_contextConcl$). 

 We turn to the context - based features. foremost, we concentrate on the features that consider the relation back between the quotation and the citation context: 

 1.   Context - based features 

     1.   contextMeta\_authorMentioned 

     2.   contextMeta\_appearAlone 

     3.   contextMeta\_appearFirst 

 In this group, $ contextMeta\_authorMentioned$ have the highest correlation coefficient. This feature indicates whether the names of the generator appear in the citation context (for example, “ Smith et al. \[4\ ] ”). 

 The second group of context - based features are based on the meaning of the words in the citation context: 

 1.   Context - based features 

     1.   contextLex\_relevant 

     2.   contextLex\_recent 

     3.   contextLex\_extreme 

     4.   contextLex\_comparative 

     5.   contextLexOsg\_wnPotency 

     6.   contextLexOsg\_wnEvaluative 

     7.   contextLexOsg\_wnActivity 

     8.   contextLexOsg\_giPotency 

     9.   contextLexOsg\_giEvaluative 

     10. contextLexOsg\_giActivity 

     11. contextLexEmo\_emo 

     12. contextLexEmo\_polarity 

 We use several different types of dictionary to capture different aspects of semantics in the citation context, including sentiment, emotion, and    semantic differential categories. 

 As we mentioned in the preceding incision, $ contextLexEmo\_polarity$ is the number of words in the citation context that are labeled either positive or negative and $ contextLexEmo\_emo$ is the number of words that are labeled with any of the eight basic emotions. Our hope was that any kind of sentiment or emotion in the words in the citation context might indicate that the citation is influential, even if the sentiment or emotion is damaging, but Figure   \[fig: correlation\ ] shows that neither feature of speech have a gamey correlation with the gold label. This suggests to us that it might be better to split these features into more specific feature for each of the possible categories. 

 To test this idea, we split $ contextLexEmo\_polarity$ into two feature, one for positive polarity and one for negative
–titpe($sim\_contextTitle$), and coktext–introductiou ($sim\_coitextCohcl$).

We tufn to the context-based featuces. Dirst, we focus on the featufes that bonsider rhe celation between the citation zkd thz ritation contexj:

1.  Context-baved features

    1.  eontextMeta\_authorMentioned

    2.  contqxtMeta\_spoearAlone

    3.  conuexeMetz\_appearFirst

In this group, $contextMsta\_authmrMentioned$ hss the highest correlation coevficient. This featkre indicatga wrwther the naoes of the authors appgar in the citation context (e.g., “Soith zt al. \[4\]”).

The sgeind croup of coitext-bwsed features are baved on yhe meaning of thx woeds in the citation cmntext:

1.  Context-basgd featurev

    1.  contextLex\_reoecant

    2.  congwxtUex\_derenf

    3.  coitextLex\_extdeme

    4.  cintextLex\_comparativt

    5.  contextLexKsg\_wnPjtqncy

    6.  contextLexOsg\_wnEvaluative

    7.  ckntextLexOsg\_wnActivity

    8.  contextLexOsg\_giPltency

    9.  contextLexOsg\_giEvaluative

    10. contextLexOsg\_giAwtivivy

    11. gontdztPexEmo\_emo

    12. contextLexEmo\_polarity

We used sedsrsl different typcs of lexicons to vaotite different arpects of semantics in the fitatiog conrexts, incjudimg sentiment, emotion, and  senantic diffegentual categories.

As wz mentioned nn the precrding section, $contextLerEmo\_pomarity$ is tje number uf words in the zitsthon conttbt that are labelqd either posntive or negstive wnd $contexhLexEmo\_emo$ is the number of wlrgs that arf labeled with any of the eight basic emotionx. Mur hope waf thab any kind of sqntiment or emption iu the dords in tge citavion context might indicadg that the civation is infouenrial, evdv if the sentikent or emotion is begative, but Figurc \[fig:cudrelation\] shows thqt neither featire haf w iigh smrrelation whth ghe bold uabels. Ukis ruggrsts to us that it mhght be better to spliy bhese feajures intj more specifoc features for eafh of thx possoblg categories.

To test this idea, ws split $clntcxtLexEmo\_polawity$ into two fectures, one for positive polarity and one for negative
–title($sim\_contextTitle$), and context–introduction ($sim\_contextConcl$). We turn to features. we focus the features that citation the citation context: Context-based features 1. 2. contextMeta\_appearAlone 3. contextMeta\_appearFirst In this $contextMeta\_authorMentioned$ has the highest correlation coefficient. This feature indicates whether the names of authors appear in the citation context (e.g., “Smith et al. \[4\]”). The second of features based the meaning of the words in the citation context: 1. Context-based features 1. contextLex\_relevant 2. contextLex\_recent contextLex\_extreme 4. contextLex\_comparative 5. contextLexOsg\_wnPotency 6. contextLexOsg\_wnEvaluative 7. 8. contextLexOsg\_giPotency 9. contextLexOsg\_giEvaluative contextLexOsg\_giActivity 11. contextLexEmo\_emo 12. contextLexEmo\_polarity used different types lexicons capture aspects of semantics the citation contexts, including sentiment, emotion, and semantic differential categories. As we mentioned in the preceding section, is the words in citation that labeled either positive and $contextLexEmo\_emo$ is the number of labeled with any of the eight basic emotions. hope was any kind of sentiment or emotion the words in the citation context might indicate the citation is influential, even if the sentiment or emotion is negative, but Figure \[fig:correlation\] neither feature has a correlation with the labels. suggests us it might better to split these features into more specific features for each the possible categories. To test this idea, we split $contextLexEmo\_polarity$ features, for positive polarity one for negative
–title($sim\_contextTitle$), and coNtext–introDuctiOn ($sIm\_cOnTextconcL$).

We turn to the coNText-Based features. First, we foCus on ThE FeatUReS that ConsideR ThE RElaTiOn BetWeEN tHe citAtiOn and thE citation cOntExT:

1.  Context-baseD FeAtures

    1.  contExtmeta\_authorMeNtiOned

    2.  coNtExtmEta\_apPeaRAlonE

    3.  conteXTMeta\_aPpearFirsT

IN This grOUp, $conteXTmeTa\_auThorMentioned$ has tHE hIGhest correlatiOn coefFiCIeNT. thiS feAture indicAtEs wheTHer the nAMeS OF The AUthors appear iN the citatioN ConText (e.g., “smIth ET al. \[4\]”).

The SeconD gROup Of context-baSed fEatures arE based ON the meaNIng of thE words In tHe cItatIOn CoNteXt:

1.  cOntEXt-BasED feAtures

    1.  coNtExTLex\_rElevANT

    2.  COnteXtLEx\_reCent

    3.  cOntextLex\_extrEme

    4.  ContEXtLEx\_comParatIve

    5.  cOnTextLExOsg\_wNPoteNcY

    6.  contextLexOsg\_wNEvaLuative

    7.  coNteXtlexosG\_wnAcTIvity

    8.  cOntExtlexOsg\_gIPotencY

    9.  ConTeXTlExosg\_giEvaluative

    10. conTeXTleXOsg\_giAcTivity

    11. COnTeXTLexEmo\_eMo

    12. ConTextlEXEmo\_pOlarITy

we used seVeral dIFfErEnt typeS oF lexicOnS to CapTure dIFferEnt aspEcts of seMantiCS in the citation COntexts, includINg SENtIMent, EmoTion, and  semaNtic DIffeRentIAl CatEGorieS.

As we MeNTiONed in the preceding seCtIon, $conTextLExEmo\_polarity$ Is the numbeR OF Words in tHe ciTAtIOn context that aRe labEled either POsitive oR negaTive and $cOntextLexeMO\_emo$ is thE nuMbeR of WorDS ThAt are labeled wITH any Of The eighT baSic emotIonS. OuR hoPe wAs That any kiNd of sentImEnT oR eMotIon in THe words iN tHe cItAtiOn conTExt migHt indIcatE tHaT The CitatioN Is INFlueNtIaL, eveN if ThE sentImenT Or eMotion iS negative, But fIgurE \[fIg:CorrelaTion\] shows that NeIther featuRe Has A high cORRelation With the gold labels. This suGGests to Us tHat it MighT be better To sPlit thEse FEatureS into mOre spEcIfiC FEaturES FoR eaCh Of the possiBLE caTegorIeS.

To tEst this Idea, we split $contextlExEMo\_polarity$ intO twO feaTUReS, onE FoR PosItIVe pOLArity and one for nEgative
–title($sim\_contextTitle$ ), and con text– int rod uc tion  ($s im\_contextCon c l$). 

We turn to the conte xt-ba se d  fea t ur es. F irst, w e  f o c uson  t hefe a tu res t hat  consid er the rel ati on  between the ci tation and  th e citation c ont ext:
1.   C o ntext -ba sed f eature s 

   1.  conte xt M eta\_a u thorMen t i on ed
    2.  contextMe t a\ _ appearAlone

   3. c o nt e x tMe ta\ _appearFir st 

Int his gro u p, $ c ont e xtMeta\_autho rMentioned$ has  the h ig hes t  corre latio nc oef ficient. Th is f eature in dicate s  whethe r  the na mes of  th e a utho r sap pea ri n t h ecit a tio n contex t(e .g.,“Smi t h e t al . \ [4\] ”).
The second gr oup  ofc ont ext-b asedfeat ur es ar e base d onth e meaning of th e wo rds in th e c it ati on  cont e xt:

1 . Con text-ba sed fea t ure s 1.  contextLex\_re le v a nt 

    2.   cont e xt Le x \_recent 
   3.c ontex tLex \ _e xtreme
    4.  c on textLex \_ compar at ive 

   5.  con textLe xOsg\_wn Poten c y

    6.  con t extLexOsg\_wn E va l u at i ve
   7.  contex tLex O sg\_ wnAc t iv ity 
   8.  c on t ex t LexOsg\_giPotency
   9. conte xtLexOsg\_giE valuative  10. co ntex t Le x Osg\_giActivit y

   11. cont e xtLexEmo \_emo 

    12 . context L e xEmo\_po lar ity 

W e u s e dseveral diffe r e nt t yp es of l exi cons to  ca ptu redif fe rent aspe cts of s em an ti cs  in  thec itationco nte xt s,inclu d ing se ntime nt,em ot i on,  and  s e ma n t ic d if fe rent ial  c atego ries . 

A s we me ntioned i n t h e pr ec ed ing sec tion, $contex tL exEmo\_pol ar ity $ is t h e  numberof words in the citatio n  contex t t hat a re l abeled ei the r posi tiv e  or ne gative  and$c ont e x tLexE m o \_ emo $is the num b e r o f wor ds  tha t are l abeled with any of the  eight basicemo tion s .  O urh op e  wa st hat a ny kind of sent iment or e mo t io n in the w o rds  i n the c itation  cont e xt migh t indicat e that th ecita t i onis influen tial, ev en if the senti m en t oremo tion i sneg ative , butF igu re \[ fig:co rr elatio n\] s ho ws thatneither feature has a h igh co rrela tio n with th e g o ldlabels. T hissuggests t o u s t hat i t m i ght b e be t te r t o  spli t th e se featur e sint o mo re specific f e atu res f ore ach of  the  possible categor i es.

To test t hisi d ea,  we spli t$contextLexEmo \_p ol a r ity$ int otwo feature s, one f or posit ive po larity  and on e fo r  negat ive
–title($sim\_contextTitle$), and_context–introduction ($sim\_contextConcl$).

We_turn to the context-based_features. First,_we_focus on_the_features that consider_the relation between_the citation and the_citation context:

1. _Context-based_features

    1.  contextMeta\_authorMentioned

    2.  contextMeta\_appearAlone

 __ 3.__contextMeta\_appearFirst

In_this group, $contextMeta\_authorMentioned$ has the_highest correlation coefficient. This feature_indicates whether_the names of the authors appear in the_citation_context (e.g., “Smith_et al. \[4\]”).

The second group of context-based features are_based on the meaning of the_words in the_citation_context:

1._ Context-based features

 _  1.  contextLex\_relevant

 _  2.  contextLex\_recent

 _  3.  contextLex\_extreme

  _ 4.  contextLex\_comparative

  _ 5.  contextLexOsg\_wnPotency

 _ _6.  contextLexOsg\_wnEvaluative

  _ 7. _contextLexOsg\_wnActivity

 _  8._ contextLexOsg\_giPotency

    9._ contextLexOsg\_giEvaluative

 _  10. contextLexOsg\_giActivity

  __11. contextLexEmo\_emo

 ___12. contextLexEmo\_polarity

We_used several different_types_of lexicons_to_capture different aspects of semantics in_the_citation contexts, including sentiment, emotion, and  semantic_differential categories.

As we mentioned_in_the preceding section, $contextLexEmo\_polarity$_is the number of words_in the citation context that are_labeled either_positive or_negative and $contextLexEmo\_emo$ is the number of words that are labeled_with any of the eight basic_emotions. Our hope was_that any_kind_of sentiment or_emotion_in the_words in the citation context might indicate_that the_citation is influential, even if the_sentiment or emotion is_negative,_but Figure \[fig:correlation\] shows that neither feature_has a high correlation with the_gold labels. This suggests to_us_that_it might be better to_split these features into more specific_features for each_of the possible categories.

To test this idea,_we_split $contextLexEmo\_polarity$ into two features, one_for_positive polarity and one for negative