The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Extracting Semantic Relations for Scholarly Knowledge Base Construction
Abstract
The problem of information extraction from scientific articles, found as PDF documents in large digital repositories, is gaining more attention as the amount of research findings continues to grow. We propose a system to extract semantic relations among entities in scholarly articles by making use of external syntactic patterns and an iterative learner. While information extraction from scholarly documents have been studied before, it has been focused mainly on the abstract and keywords. Our method extracts semantic entities as concepts and instances along with their attributes from the fully body text of documents. We extract two types of relationships between concepts in the text using an iterative learning algorithm. External data sources from the web such as the Microsoft concept graph, as well as query logs, are utilized to evaluate the quality of the extracted concepts and relations. The concepts are used to construct a scientific taxonomy covering the research content of the documents. To evaluate the system we apply our approach on a set of 10k scholarly documents and conduct several evaluations to show the effectiveness of the proposed methods. We show that our system obtains a 23% improvement in precision over existing web IE tools when they are applied to scholarly documents.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Manual evaluation via domain experts and annotators is a quality metric that usually predicts accuracy with the agreement of human annotators.
“Manual evaluation via domain experts and annotators is the quality metric that usually predict accuracy with the agreement of the human annotators.”
From Scholarly knowledge graphs through structuring scholarly communication: a review (2023) · cites this paper as [52]
To evaluate correctness of classification assigned to concepts in NG-PL [52], a subset of 1000 entities was annotated by six human annotators.
“To evaluate the correctness (Is the information correct?) of the classification assigned to the concepts in NG-PL [52], subset of 1000 entities are annotated by six human annotators.”
From Scholarly knowledge graphs through structuring scholarly communication: a review (2023) · cites this paper as [52]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- 10.1145/1376616.1376746 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/2629489 · DOI
- 10.1145/988672.988687 · DOI
- fader, 2011, Identifying relations for open information extraction, Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 1535
- 10.1145/2213836.2213891 · DOI
- 10.3115/992133.992154 · DOI
- 10.3115/1119176.1119191 · DOI
- snow, 2004, Learning syntactic patterns for automatic hypernym discovery, NIPS, 17, 1297
- pasca, 2007, What you seek is what you get: Extraction of class attributes from query logs, IJCAI, 7, 2832
- lee, 2013, Attribute extraction and scoring: A probabilistic approach, Data Engineering (ICDE) 2013 IEEE 29th International Conference on, 194
- etzioni, 2011, Open information extraction: The second generation, Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
- 10.3115/v1/P15-1034 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.18653/v1/S17-2091 · DOI
- carlson, 2010, Toward an architecture for never-ending language learning, AAAI, 5, 3
- singhal, 0, Introducing the Knowledge Graph Things Not Strings
- auer, 2007, Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data, The Semantic Web, 722, 10.1007/978-3-540-76298-0_52 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/1242572.1242667 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3103010.3121043 · DOI
- lenat, 1989, Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems Representation and Inference in the CYC Project
- 10.1002/asi.20707 · DOI
- 10.3115/1614164.1614177 · DOI
- ponzetto, 2007, Deriving a large scale taxonomy from wikipedia, AAAI, 7, 1440
- 10.1145/2960811.2967151 · DOI
- 10.3115/v1/P14-5010 · DOI
- lopez, 0, Grobid
- 10.18653/v1/P16-1137 · DOI · Paper page
- chang, 2014, Tokensregex: Defining cascaded regular expressions over tokens, Tech Rep CSTR 2014-02
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Scholarly knowledge graphs through structuring scholarly communication: a review
Verma, S., Bhatia, R., Harit, S., & Batish, S. (2023) · Complex & Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1007/s40747-022-00806-6 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Al-Zaidy, R. A., & Giles, C. L.
- Venue
- 2018 IEEE 12th International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2018-01
- Pages
- 56-63
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 0
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