Datasets:

ArXiv:
Tags:
License:
soldni commited on
Commit
4dd3d49
1 Parent(s): eb52810
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +57 -0
README.md CHANGED
@@ -1,3 +1,60 @@
1
  ---
2
  license: apache-2.0
3
  ---
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
  ---
2
  license: apache-2.0
3
  ---
4
+
5
+
6
+ # CSAbstruct
7
+
8
+ CSAbstruct was created as part of ["Pretrained Language Models for Sequential Sentence Classification"][1].
9
+
10
+ It contains 2,189 manually annotated computer science abstracts with sentences annotated according to their rhetorical roles in the abstract, similar to the [PUBMED-RCT][2] categories.
11
+
12
+
13
+ ## Dataset Construction Details
14
+
15
+ CSAbstruct is a new dataset of annotated computer science abstracts with sentence labels according to their rhetorical roles.
16
+ The key difference between this dataset and [PUBMED-RCT][2] is that PubMed abstracts are written according to a predefined structure, whereas computer science papers are free-form.
17
+ Therefore, there is more variety in writing styles in CSAbstruct.
18
+ CSAbstruct is collected from the Semantic Scholar corpus [(Ammar et al., 2018)][3].
19
+ Each sentence is annotated by 5 workers on the [Figure-eight platform][4], with one of 5 categories `{BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVE, METHOD, RESULT, OTHER}`.
20
+
21
+ We use 8 abstracts (with 51 sentences) as test questions to train crowdworkers.
22
+ Annotators whose accuracy is less than 75% are disqualified from doing the actual annotation job.
23
+ The annotations are aggregated using the agreement on a single sentence weighted by the accuracy of the annotator on the initial test questions.
24
+ A confidence score is associated with each instance based on the annotator initial accuracy and agreement of all annotators on that instance.
25
+ We then split the dataset 75%/15%/10% into train/dev/test partitions, such that the test set has the highest confidence scores.
26
+ Agreement rate on a random subset of 200 sentences is 75%, which is quite high given the difficulty of the task.
27
+ Compared with [PUBMED-RCT][2], our dataset exhibits a wider variety of writ- ing styles, since its abstracts are not written with an explicit structural template.
28
+
29
+ ## Dataset Statistics
30
+
31
+ | Statistic | Avg ± std |
32
+ |--------------------------|-------------|
33
+ | Doc length in sentences | 6.7 ± 1.99 |
34
+ | Sentence length in words | 21.8 ± 10.0 |
35
+
36
+ | Label | % in Dataset |
37
+ |---------------|--------------|
38
+ | `BACKGROUND` | 33% |
39
+ | `METHOD` | 32% |
40
+ | `RESULT` | 21% |
41
+ | `OBJECTIVE` | 12% |
42
+ | `OTHER` | 03% |
43
+
44
+ ## Citation
45
+
46
+ If you use this dataset, please cite the following paper:
47
+
48
+ ```
49
+ @inproceedings{Cohan2019EMNLP,
50
+ title={Pretrained Language Models for Sequential Sentence Classification},
51
+ author={Arman Cohan, Iz Beltagy, Daniel King, Bhavana Dalvi, Dan Weld},
52
+ year={2019},
53
+ booktitle={EMNLP},
54
+ }
55
+ ```
56
+
57
+ [1]: https://aclanthology.org/D19-1383
58
+ [2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.06071
59
+ [3]: https://aclanthology.org/N18-3011/
60
+ [4]: https://www.figure-eight.com/