CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Semantically Orthogonal Framework for Citation Classification: Disentangling Intent and Content

Duan, Changxu, Tan, Zhiyin·2026·Lecture Notes in Computer Science
DOI 10.1007/978-3-032-05409-8_12
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-032-05409-8_12

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 14 references

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. Abu-Jbara, A., Ezra, J., Radev, D.: Purpose and polarity of citation: towards NLP-based bibliometrics. In: Vanderwende, L., Daumé III, H., Kirchhoff, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp. 596–606. Association for Computational Linguistics, Atlanta, Georgia (2013). https://aclanthology.org/N13-1067/
  2. Allen Institute for AI: Semantic Scholar (2025). https://www.semanticscholar.org/
  3. Anderson, M.H., Lemken, R.K.: Citation context analysis as a method for conducting rigorous and impactful literature reviews. Organ. Res. Methods 26(1), 77–106 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120969905 · DOI
  4. Araabi, A., Niculae, V., Monz, C.: Joint dropout: improving generalizability in low-resource neural machine translation through phrase pair variables. In: Utiyama, M., Wang, R. (eds.) Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XIX, Vol. 1: Research Track, pp. 12–25. Asia-Pacific Association for Machine Translation, Macau SAR, China (2023). https://aclanthology.org/2023.mtsummit-research.2/
  5. Artstein, R., Poesio, M.: Survey article: inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Comput. Linguist. 34(4), 555–596 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.07-034-R2. https://aclanthology.org/J08-4004/ · DOI · Paper page
  6. Baker, C.F., Fillmore, C.J., Lowe, J.B.: The Berkeley FrameNet project. In: 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Volume 1, pp. 86–90. Association for Computational Linguistics, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (1998). https://doi.org/10.3115/980845.980860. https://aclanthology.org/P98-1013/ · DOI
  7. Bascur, J.P., Verberne, S., van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L.: Academic information retrieval using citation clusters: in-depth evaluation based on systematic reviews. Scientometrics 128(5), 2895–2921 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04681-x · DOI
  8. Bassignana, E., Plank, B.: CrossRE: a cross-domain dataset for relation extraction. In: Goldberg, Y., Kozareva, Z., Zhang, Y. (eds.) Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pp. 3592–3604. Association for Computational Linguistics, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (2022). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.263. https://aclanthology.org/2022.findings-emnlp.263/ · DOI
  9. Beltagy, I., Lo, K., Cohan, A.: SciBERT: a pretrained language model for scientific text. In: Inui, K., Jiang, J., Ng, V., Wan, X. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pp. 3615–3620. Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong, China (2019). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1371. https://aclanthology.org/D19-1371/ · DOI · Paper page
  10. Berrebbi, D., Huynh, N., Balalau, O.: Graphcite: citation intent classification in scientific publications via graph embeddings, pp. 779–783. WWW 2022: The ACM Web Conference 2022. ACM (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3487553.3524657 · DOI
  11. Chen, Y., et al.: CDEvalSumm: an empirical study of cross-dataset evaluation for neural summarization systems. In: Cohn, T., He, Y., Liu, Y. (eds.) Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pp. 3679–3691. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online (2020). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.329. https://aclanthology.org/2020.findings-emnlp.329/ · DOI
  12. Cohen, J.: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 20(1), 37–46 (1960). https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Dardas, L.A., Sallam, M., Woodward, A., Sweis, N., Sweis, N., Sawair, F.A.: Evaluating research impact based on semantic scholar highly influential citations, total citations, and altmetric attention scores: the quest for refined measures remains illusive. Publications 11(1), 5 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11010005 · DOI
  14. Ding, N., et al.: OpenPrompt: an open-source framework for prompt-learning. In: Basile, V., Kozareva, Z., Stajner, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pp. 105–113. Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland (2022). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-demo.10. https://aclanthology.org/2022.acl-demo.10/ · DOI
  15. Fillmore, C.J., et al.: Frame semantics. Cogn. Linguist. Basic Read. 34, 373–400 (2006) · DOI
  16. Ghosal, T., Varanasi, K.K., Kordoni, V.: A deep multi-tasking approach leveraging on cited-citing paper relationship for citation intent classification. Scientometrics 129(2), 767–783 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04811-5 · DOI
  17. Guo, M., Yang, Y., Cer, D., Shen, Q., Constant, N.: MultiReQA: a cross-domain evaluation for retrieval question answering models. In: Ben-David, E., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Domain Adaptation for NLP, pp. 94–104. Association for Computational Linguistics, Kyiv, Ukraine (2021). https://aclanthology.org/2021.adaptnlp-1.10/
  18. Hettiachchi, D., et al.: Investigating and mitigating biases in crowdsourced data, pp. 331–334. CSCW 2021: Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3462204.3481729 · DOI
  19. Ivanova, R.V., Kirrane, S., van Erp, M.: Comparing annotated datasets for named entity recognition in English literature. In: Calzolari, N., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pp. 3788–3797. European Language Resources Association, Marseille, France (2022). https://aclanthology.org/2022.lrec-1.404/ · DOI
  20. Jha, R., Jbara, A.A., Qazvinian, V., Radev, D.R.: NLP-driven citation analysis for scientometrics. Nat. Lang. Eng. 23(1), 93–130 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1017/s1351324915000443 · DOI
  21. Koloveas, P., Chatzopoulos, S., Vergoulis, T., Tryfonopoulos, C.: Can LLMs predict citation intent? An experimental analysis of in-context learning and fine-tuning on open LLMs (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.14561 · DOI
  22. Kunnath, S.N., Pride, D., Knoth, P.: Prompting strategies for citation classification. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2023, pp. 1127–1137. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3583780.3615018 · DOI
  23. Li, K., et al.: Probing out-of-distribution generalization in machine learning for materials (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06489 · arXiv
  24. Lin, T.-Y., et al.: Microsoft COCO: common objects in context. In: Fleet, D., Pajdla, T., Schiele, B., Tuytelaars, T. (eds.) ECCV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8693, pp. 740–755. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10602-1_48 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Mistral AI Team: Mistral Small 3 (2025). https://mistral.ai/news/mistral-small-3/ · DOI
  26. Nambanoor Kunnath, S., Pride, D., Knoth, P.: Dynamic context extraction for citation classification. In: He, Y., Ji, H., Li, S., Liu, Y., Chang, C.H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 12th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 539–549. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online only (2022). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.aacl-main.41. https://aclanthology.org/2022.aacl-main.41/ · DOI
  27. Nambanoor Kunnath, S., Stauber, V., Wu, R., Pride, D., Botev, V., Knoth, P.: ACT2: a multi-disciplinary semi-structured dataset for importance and purpose classification of citations. In: Calzolari, N., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pp. 3398–3406. European Language Resources Association, Marseille, France (2022). https://aclanthology.org/2022.lrec-1.363/ · DOI
  28. Northcutt, C., Jiang, L., Chuang, I.: Confident learning: estimating uncertainty in dataset labels. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 70, 1373–1411 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.12125 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Northcutt, C.G., Athalye, A., Mueller, J.: Pervasive label errors in test sets destabilize machine learning benchmarks. In: Thirty-Fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 1) (2021). https://openreview.net/forum?id=XccDXrDNLek
  30. Palmer, M., Gildea, D., Kingsbury, P.: The proposition bank: an annotated corpus of semantic roles. Comput. Linguist. 31(1), 71–106 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1162/0891201053630264. https://aclanthology.org/J05-1004/ · DOI
  31. Pride, D., Knoth, P.: An authoritative approach to citation classification. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries in 2020, JCDL 2020, pp. 337–340. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3383583.3398617 · DOI
  32. Pride, D., Knoth, P.: An authoritative approach to citation classification. JCDL 2020: The ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries in 2020. ACM (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3383583.3398617 · DOI
  33. Qazvinian, V., Radev, D.R.: Scientific paper summarization using citation summary networks. In: Scott, D., Uszkoreit, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2008), pp. 689–696. Coling 2008 Organizing Committee, Manchester, UK (2008). https://aclanthology.org/C08-1087/ · DOI
  34. Qwen: Qwen2.5 technical report (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15115 · arXiv
  35. Riabi, A., Mouilleron, V., Mahamdi, M., Antoun, W., Seddah, D.: Beyond dataset creation: critical view of annotation variation and bias probing of a dataset for online radical content detection. In: Rambow, O., Wanner, L., Apidianaki, M., Al-Khalifa, H., Eugenio, B.D., Schockaert, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 8640–8663. Association for Computational Linguistics, Abu Dhabi, UAE (2025). https://aclanthology.org/2025.coling-main.578/
  36. Roman, M., Shahid, A., Khan, S., Koubaa, A., Yu, L.: Citation intent classification using word embedding. IEEE Access 9, 9982–9995 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3050547 · DOI
  37. Rücker, S., Akbik, A.: CleanCoNLL: a nearly noise-free named entity recognition dataset. In: Bouamor, H., Pino, J., Bali, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 8628–8645. Association for Computational Linguistics, Singapore (2023). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.533. https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.533/ · DOI
  38. Shotton, D.: CiTO, the citation typing ontology. J. Biomed. Semant. 1(Suppl. 1), S6 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-1-s1-s6 · DOI
  39. Shui, Z., et al.: Fine-tuning language models on multiple datasets for citation intention classification. In: Al-Onaizan, Y., Bansal, M., Chen, Y.N. (eds.) Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pp. 16718–16732. Association for Computational Linguistics, Miami, Florida, USA (2024). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.974. https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-emnlp.974/ · DOI
  40. Singh, S., Yadav, A., Jain, J., Shi, H., Johnson, J., Desai, K.: Benchmarking object detectors with coco: a new path forward. In: Leonardis, A., Ricci, E., Roth, S., Russakovsky, O., Sattler, T., Varol, G. (eds.) ECCV 2024, pp. 279–295. Springer, Cham (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72784-9_16 · DOI
  41. Spiegel-Rosing, I.: Science studies: bibliometric and content analysis. Soc. Stud. Sci. 7(1), 97–113 (2 1977). https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277700700111 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Team, L.: The llama 3 herd of models (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783 · arXiv
  43. Teufel, S.: Argumentative zoning: information extraction from scientific text (1999). https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sht25/thesis/t1.pdf
  44. Teufel, S., Siddharthan, A., Tidhar, D.: Automatic classification of citation function. In: Jurafsky, D., Gaussier, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 103–110. Association for Computational Linguistics, Sydney, Australia (2006). https://aclanthology.org/W06-1613/ · DOI · Paper page
  45. Tjong Kim Sang, E.F., De Meulder, F.: Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: language-independent named entity recognition. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pp. 142–147 (2003). https://aclanthology.org/W03-0419/ · DOI · Paper page
  46. Tkachenko, U., Thyagarajan, A., Mueller, J.: Objectlab: automated diagnosis of mislabeled images in object detection data (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2309.00832. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.00832 · DOI
  47. Valenzuela, M., Ha, V., Etzioni, O.: Identifying meaningful citations. In: AAAI Workshop: Scholarly Big Data, vol. 15, p. 13 (2015)
  48. Yu, H., Liu, J., Zhang, X., Wu, J., Cui, P.: A survey on evaluation of out-of-distribution generalization (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.01874 · arXiv
  49. Zha, D., et al.: Data-centric artificial intelligence: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 57(5) (2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3711118 · DOI
  50. Zheng, Y., Zhang, R., Zhang, J., Ye, Y., Luo, Z.: LlamaFactory: unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models. In: Cao, Y., Feng, Y., Xiong, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System Demonstrations), pp. 400–410. Association for Computational Linguistics, Bangkok, Thailand (2024). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-demos.38. https://aclanthology.org/2024.acl-demos.38/ · DOI
  51. Zimmermann, E., Szeto, J., Pasquero, J., Ratle, F.: Benchmarking a benchmark: how reliable is MS-coco? (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02709 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 3

Metadata

Authors
Duan, C., & Tan, Z.
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Publisher
Springer Nature Switzerland
Published
2025-09-15
Pages
183-206
ISSN
  • 0302-9743
  • 1611-3349
DOI
10.1007/978-3-032-05409-8_12
Cited by
3
References
14
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review