Cited by 15

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Extracting Semantic Relations for Scholarly Knowledge Base Construction

Al-Zaidy, Rabah A., Giles, C. Lee·2018·2018 IEEE 12th International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC)

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

Crossref · 10.1109/icsc.2018.00017

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”
  • 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.”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. 10.1145/1376616.1376746 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1145/2629489 · DOI
  3. 10.1145/988672.988687 · DOI
  4. fader, 2011, Identifying relations for open information extraction, Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 1535
  5. 10.1145/2213836.2213891 · DOI
  6. 10.3115/992133.992154 · DOI
  7. 10.3115/1119176.1119191 · DOI
  8. snow, 2004, Learning syntactic patterns for automatic hypernym discovery, NIPS, 17, 1297
  9. pasca, 2007, What you seek is what you get: Extraction of class attributes from query logs, IJCAI, 7, 2832
  10. lee, 2013, Attribute extraction and scoring: A probabilistic approach, Data Engineering (ICDE) 2013 IEEE 29th International Conference on, 194
  11. etzioni, 2011, Open information extraction: The second generation, Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
  12. 10.3115/v1/P15-1034 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.18653/v1/S17-2091 · DOI
  14. carlson, 2010, Toward an architecture for never-ending language learning, AAAI, 5, 3
  15. singhal, 0, Introducing the Knowledge Graph Things Not Strings
  16. 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
  17. 10.1145/1242572.1242667 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1145/3103010.3121043 · DOI
  19. lenat, 1989, Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems Representation and Inference in the CYC Project
  20. 10.1002/asi.20707 · DOI
  21. 10.3115/1614164.1614177 · DOI
  22. ponzetto, 2007, Deriving a large scale taxonomy from wikipedia, AAAI, 7, 1440
  23. 10.1145/2960811.2967151 · DOI
  24. 10.3115/v1/P14-5010 · DOI
  25. lopez, 0, Grobid
  26. 10.18653/v1/P16-1137 · DOI · Paper page
  27. chang, 2014, Tokensregex: Defining cascaded regular expressions over tokens, Tech Rep CSTR 2014-02

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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