The CL-SciSumm 2016 shared task introduced an interesting problem: given a document D and a piece of text that cites D, how do we identify the text spans of D being referenced by the piece of text? The shared task provided the first annotated dataset for studying this problem. We present an analysis of our continued work in improving our system’s performance on this task. We demonstrate how topic models and word embeddings can be used to surpass the previously best performing system.
In addition to these features, we have to consider that multiple citation markers may be present in a sentence. Thus, only certain parts of a sentence may be relevant to identifying the target of a particular citation marker. Qazvinian and Radev @cite_8 share an approach to find the fragment of a sentence that applies to a citation, especially in the case of sentences with multiple citation markers. The research of Abu-Jbara and Radev @cite_3 further argues that a fragment need not always be continguous.
@cite_3 @cite_8
62810358 2149801561
A citing sentence is one that appears in a scientific article and cites previous work. Citing sentences have been studied and used in many applications. For example, they have been used in scientific paper summarization, automatic survey generation, paraphrase identification, and citation function classification. Citing sentences that cite multiple papers are common in scientific writing. This observation should be taken into consideration when using citing sentences in applications. For instance, when a citing sentence is used in a summary of a scientific paper, only the fragments of the sentence that are relevant to the summarized paper should be included in the summary. In this paper, we present and compare three different approaches for identifying the fragments of a citing sentence that are related to a given target reference. Our methods are: word classification, sequence labeling, and segment classification. Our experiments show that segment classification achieves the best results. The popular h-index used to measure scientific output can be described in terms of a pool of evaluated objects (the papers), a quality function on the evaluated objects (the number of citations received by each paper) and a sentencing line crossing the origin, whose intersection with the graph of the quality function yields the index value (in the h-index this is a line with slope 1). Based on this abstraction, we present a new index, the c-index, in which the evaluated objects are the citations received by an author, a group of authors, a journal, etc., the quality function of a citation is the collaboration distance between the authors of the cited and the citing papers, and the sentencing line can take slopes between 0 and ∞. As a result, the new index counts only those citations which are significant enough, where significance is proportional to collaboration distance. Several advantages of the new c-index with respect to previous proposals are discussed. The old Asian legend about the blind men and the elephant comes to mind when looking at how different authors of scientific papers describe a piece of related prior work. It turns out that different citations to the same paper often focus on different aspects of that paper and that neither provides a full description of its full set of contributions. In this article, we will describe our investigation of this phenomenon. We studied citation summaries in the context of research papers in the biomedical domain. A citation summary is the set of citing sentences for a given article and can be used as a surrogate for the actual article in a variety of scenarios. It contains information that was deemed by peers to be important. Our study shows that citation summaries overlap to some extent with the abstracts of the papers and that they also differ from them in that they focus on different aspects of these papers than do the abstracts. In addition to this, co-cited articles (which are pairs of articles cited by another article) tend to be similar. We show results based on a lexical similarity metric called cohesion to justify our claims. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. In citation-based summarization, text written by several researchers is leveraged to identify the important aspects of a target paper. Previous work on this problem focused almost exclusively on its extraction aspect (i.e. selecting a representative set of citation sentences that highlight the contribution of the target paper). Meanwhile, the fluency of the produced summaries has been mostly ignored. For example, diversity, readability, cohesion, and ordering of the sentences included in the summary have not been thoroughly considered. This resulted in noisy and confusing summaries. In this work, we present an approach for producing readable and cohesive citation-based summaries. Our experiments show that the proposed approach outperforms several baselines in terms of both extraction quality and fluency.