Burrows‘ Zeta wurde erstmals von John Burrows (2007) vorgeschlagen und ursprünglich für die stilometrische Autorenschaft  Attribution verwendet. Es gibt mehrere Varianten von Zeta, die von Craig und Kinney (2009) und von Schöch et al. (2018) vorgeschlagen wurden. Zeta ist mathematisch sehr einfach und hat eine Tendenz Inhaltswörter zu präferieren. Diese zwei Eigenschaften machen das Maß für andere Anwendungsdomänen in CLS attraktiv, wie etwa Genreanalyse (Schöch 2018) oder Genderanalyse (Hoover 2010). Zeta-Maß quantifiziert den Grad der Verteilung eines Merkmals in zwei Korpora und vergleicht sie. Es erfolgt durch Vergleichen der Dokumentanteile eines Zielwortes oder -merkmals (dh des Anteils aller Dokumente, in denen das Zielwort mindestens einmal vorkommt) im Ziel- und Vergleichskorpus. In unserem Framework haben wir zwei Varianten von Zeta implementiert: Burrows’ Zeta (Zeta_orig, Burrows 2007) und logarithmisches Zeta (Zeta_log, Schöch et al. 2018), um ihre Leistung zu vergleichen.

Bibliografie

Du, Keli, Julia Dudar, Cora Rok, and Christof Schöch, ‘Zeta & Eta: An Exploration and Evaluation of Two Dispersion-Based Measures of Distinctiveness’, Proceedings Http://Ceur-Ws. Org ISSN, 1613 (2021), 0073
Rizvi, Pervez, ‘An Improvement to Zeta’, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34.2 (2019), 419–22 <https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy039>
Rizvi, Pervez, ‘The Interpretation of Zeta Test Results’, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34.2 (2019), 401–18 <https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy038>
Rebora, Simone, J. Berenike Herrmann, Gerhard Lauer, and Massimo Salgaro, ‘Robert Musil, a War Journal, and Stylometry: Tackling the Issue of Short Texts in Authorship Attribution’, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34.3 (2019), 582–605 <https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy055>
González, José Eduardo, Montserrat-Fuente Camacho, and Marcus Barbosa, ‘Detecting Modernismo’s Fingerprint: A Digital Humanities Approach to the Turn of the Century Spanish American Novel’, Review: Literature and Arts of the Americas, 51.2 (2018), 195–204 <https://doi.org/10.1080/08905762.2018.1540577>
Weidman, Sean G., and James O’Sullivan, ‘The Limits of Distinctive Words: Re-Evaluating Literature’s Gender Marker Debate’, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 33.2 (2018), 374–90 <https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqx017>
Schöch, Christof, Daniel Schlör, Albin Zehe, Henning Gebhard, Martin Becker, and Andreas Hotho, ‘Burrows’​ ​Zeta: Exploring​ and​ Evaluating Variants​ ​and​ ​Parameters’, in Book of Abstracts of the Digital Humanities Conference (presented at the Digital Humanities Conference (DH2018), Mexico City: ADHO, 2018) <https://dh2018.adho.org/burrows-zeta-exploring-and-evaluating-variants-and-parameters/>
Schöch, Christof, ‘Zeta für die kontrastive Analyse literarischer Texte. Theorie, Implementierung, Fallstudie’, in Quantitative Ansätze in den Literatur- und Geisteswissenschaften. Systematische und historische Perspektiven, ed. by Toni Bernhart, Sandra Richter, Marcus Lepper, Marcus Willand, and Andrea Albrecht (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018), pp. 77–94 <https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110523300/9783110523300-004/9783110523300-004.xml>
David L. Hoover, ‘Using the Zeta and Iota Spreadsheet’, 2017 <https://wp.nyu.edu/exceltextanalysis/zetaiotawidespectrum/usingzetaiota/> [accessed 17 September 2019]
Rybicki, Jan, ‘Vive La Différence: Tracing the (Authorial) Gender Signal by Multivariate Analysis of Word Frequencies’, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 31.4 (2016), 746–61 <https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqv023>
Hoover, David L., ‘The Tutor’s Story : A Case Study of Mixed Authorship’, English Studies, 93.3 (2012), 324–39 <https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2012.668791>
Hoover, David L., ‘DH2010: The Craig Zeta Spreadsheet’, 2010 <http://dh2010.cch.kcl.ac.uk/academic-programme/abstracts/papers/html/ab-659.html> [accessed 17 September 2019]
Craig, Hugh, and Arthur F. Kinney, eds., Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship, 1st edn (Cambridge University Press, 2009)
Burrows, John, ‘All the Way Through: Testing for Authorship in Different Frequency Strata’, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 22.1 (2007), 27–47 <https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqi067>
Jordan, Ellen, Hugh Craig, and Alexis Antonia, ‘The Brontë Sisters and the “Christian Remembrancer”: A Pilot Study in the Use of the “Burrows Method” to Identify the Authorship of Unsigned Articles in the Nineteenth-Century Periodical Press’, Victorian Periodicals Review, 39.1 (2006), 21–45 <https://www.jstor.org/stable/20084107> [accessed 7 September 2019]
Burrows, John, ‘Who Wrote Shamela? Verifying the Authorship of a Parodic Text’, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 20.4 (2005), 437–50 <https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqi049>
Burrows, John, and Hugh Craig, ‘Lucy Hutchinson and the Authorship of Two Seventeenth-Century Poems: A Computational Approach’, The Seventeenth Century, 16.2 (2001), 259–82 <https://doi.org/10.1080/0268117X.2001.10555493>
Forsyth, Rs, Di Holmes, and Ek Tse, ‘Cicero, Sigonio, and Burrows: Investigating the Authenticity of the Consolatio’, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 14.3 (1999), 375–400 <https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/14.3.375>
Rotari, Gabriela, Melina Jander, and Jan Rybicki, ‘The Grimm Brothers: A Stylometric Network Analysis’, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities <https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqz088>