Today, full-texts of scientific articles are often stored in different locations than the used datasets. Dataset registries aim at a closer integration by making datasets citable but authors typically refer to datasets using inconsistent abbreviations and heterogeneous metadata (e.g. title, publication year). It is thus hard to reproduce research results, to access datasets for further analysis, and to determine the impact of a dataset. Manually detecting references to datasets in scientific articles is time-consuming and requires expert knowledge in the underlying research domain.We propose and evaluate a semi-automatic three-step approach for finding explicit references to datasets in social sciences articles.We first extract pre-defined special features from dataset titles in the da|ra registry, then detect references to datasets using the extracted features, and finally match the references found with corresponding dataset titles. The approach does not require a corpus of articles (avoiding the cold start problem) and performs well on a test corpus. We achieved an F-measure of 0.84 for detecting references in full-texts and an F-measure of 0.83 for finding correct matches of detected references in the da|ra dataset registry.
proposed a rule-based citation mining technique @cite_11 . Their approach detects literature references from each document and then extracts citation metadata from each of them, such as title, authors, and venue. Based on the venue, it then extracts all related titles from the DBLP computer science bibliography, which contains more than three million articles. Finally, it tries to link the title of each extracted literature reference and titles found in DBLP.
@cite_11
182623531
Due to name abbreviations, identical names, name misspellings, and pseudonyms in publications or bibliographies (citations), an author may have multiple names and multiple authors may share the same name. Such name ambiguity affects the performance of document retrieval, Web search, database integration, and may cause improper attribution to authors. We investigate two supervised learning approaches to disambiguate authors in the citations. One approach uses the naive Bayes probability model, a generative model; the other uses support vector machines (SVMs) [V. Vapnik (1995)] and the vector space representation of citations, a discriminative model. Both approaches utilize three types of citation attributes: coauthor names, the title of the paper, and the title of the journal or proceeding. We illustrate these two approaches on two types of data, one collected from the Web, mainly publication lists from homepages, the other collected from the DBLP citation databases. The CiteSeer x digital library stores and indexes research articles in Computer Science and related fields. Although its main purpose is to make it easier for researchers to search for scientific information, CiteSeer x has been proven as a powerful resource in many data mining, machine learning and information retrieval applications that use rich metadata, e.g., titles, abstracts, authors, venues, references lists, etc. The metadata extraction in CiteSeer x is done using automated techniques. Although fairly accurate, these techniques still result in noisy metadata. Since the performance of models trained on these data highly depends on the quality of the data, we propose an approach to CiteSeer x metadata cleaning that incorporates information from an external data source. The result is a subset of CiteSeer x , which is substantially cleaner than the entire set. Our goal is to make the new dataset available to the research community to facilitate future work in Information Retrieval. Citations play an essential role in navigating academic literature and following chains of evidence in research. With the growing availability of large digital archives of scientific papers, the automated extraction and analysis of citations is becoming increasingly relevant. However, existing approaches to citation extraction still fall short of the high accuracy required to build more sophisticated and reliable tools for citation analysis and corpus navigation. In this paper, we present techniques for high accuracy extraction of citations and references from academic papers. By collecting multiple sources of evidence about entities from documents, and integrating citation extraction, reference segmentation, and citation-reference matching, we are able to significantly improve performance in subtasks including citation identification, author named entity recognition, and citation-reference matching. Applying our algorithm to previously-unseen documents, we demonstrate high F-measure performance of 0.980 for citation extraction, 0.983 for author named entity recognition, and 0.948 for citation-reference matching. Objectives: To investigate whether (1) machine learning classifiers can help identify nonrandomized studies eligible for full-text screening by systematic reviewers; (2) classifier performance varies with optimization; and (3) the number of citations to screen can be reduced. Methods: We used an open-source, data-mining suite to process and classify biomedical citations that point to mostly nonrandomized studies from 2 systematic reviews. We built training and test sets for citation portions and compared classifier performance by considering the value of indexing, various feature sets, and optimization. We conducted our experiments in 2 phases. The design of phase I with no optimization was: 4 classifiersx3 feature setsx3 citation portions. Classifiers included k-nearest neighbor, naive Bayes, complement naive Bayes, and evolutionary support vector machine. Feature sets included bag of words, and 2- and 3-term n-grams. Citation portions included titles, titles and abstracts, and full citations with metadata. Phase II with optimization involved a subset of the classifiers, as well as features extracted from full citations, and full citations with overweighted titles. We optimized features and classifier parameters by manually setting information gain thresholds outside of a process for iterative grid optimization with 10-fold cross-validations. We independently tested models on data reserved for that purpose and statistically compared classifier performance on 2 types of feature sets. We estimated the number of citations needed to screen by reviewers during a second pass through a reduced set of citations. Results: In phase I, the evolutionary support vector machine returned the best recall for bag of words extracted from full citations; the best classifier with respect to overall performance was k-nearest neighbor. No classifier attained good enough recall for this task without optimization. In phase II, we boosted performance with optimization for evolutionary support vector machine and complement naive Bayes classifiers. Generalization performance was better for the latter in the independent tests. For evolutionary support vector machine and complement naive Bayes classifiers, the initial retrieval set was reduced by 46 and 35 , respectively. Conclusions: Machine learning classifiers can help identify nonrandomized studies eligible for full-text screening by systematic reviewers. Optimization can markedly improve performance of classifiers. However, generalizability varies with the classifier. The number of citations to screen during a second independent pass through the citations can be substantially reduced.