CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Ontology Extraction and Usage in the Scholarly Knowledge Domain1

Salatino, Angelo A., Osborne, Francesco, Motta, Enrico·2020·Studies on the Semantic Web
DOI 10.3233/ssw200037
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Ontologies of research areas have been proven to be useful resources for analysing and making sense of scholarly data. In this chapter, we present the Computer Science Ontology (CSO), which is the largest ontology of research areas in the field, and discuss a number of applications that build on CSO to support high-level tasks, such as topic classification, metadata extraction, and recommendation of books.

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 · 10.3233/ssw200037

Cites

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?

  • There are various conceptual models classified into groups from representation of specific research areas to describing structure of scholarly documents, rhetorical elements and bibliographies [80, 112].

    “There are various conceptual models that are classified into groups from representation of specific research areas to describing structure of the scholarly documents, rhetorical elements and bibliographies [80, 112].”

    From Scholarly knowledge graphs through structuring scholarly communication: a review (2023) · cites this paper as [80]

    Section 2.1, “Ontologies of research areas” (page not available), describes models for specific research fields, including computer science, medicine, and physics. The passages do not establish the claimed grouping extending to scholarly-document structure, rhetorical elements, and bibliographies. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Computer Science Ontology [80] is an ontology for describing higher-level Computer Science study fields, as well as sub-topics and words that go with them.

    “Similarly, Computer Science Ontology [80] is an ontology for describing higher-level Computer Science study fields, as well as the sub-topics and words that go with them.”

    From Scholarly knowledge graphs through structuring scholarly communication: a review (2023) · cites this paper as [80]

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Angioni, S., Salatino, A., Osborne, F., Reforgiato Recupero, D., Motta, E.: In- tegrating knowledge graphs for analysing academia and industry dynamics. In: ADBIS, TPDL and EDA 2020 Common Workshops and Doctoral Consortium. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2020)
  2. Bettencourt, L.M., Kaiser, D.I., Kaur, J.: Scientific discovery and topological tran- sitions in collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics 3(3), 210-221 (2009)
  3. Boyack, K.W., Newman, D., Duhon, R.J., Klavans, R., Patek, M., Biber- stine, J.R., Schijvenaars, B., Skupin, A., Ma, N., Brner, K.: Cluster- ing more than two million biomedical publications: Comparing the accura- cies of nine text-based similarity approaches. PLOS ONE 6(3), 1-11 (03 2011). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018029, https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0018029 · DOI
  4. Cimiano, P., Völker, J.: Text2onto. In: Montoyo, A., Muńoz, R., Métais, E. (eds.) Natural Language Processing and Information Systems. pp. 227-238. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2005)
  5. Clough, P., Sanderson, M., Tang, J., Gollins, T., Warner, A.: Examining the limits of crowdsourcing for relevance assessment. IEEE Internet Computing 17(4), 32-38 (July 2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2012.95 · DOI
  6. Dessì, D., Osborne, F., Reforgiato Recupero, D., Buscaldi, D., Motta, E., Sack, H.: Ai-kg: an automatically generated knowledge graph of artificial intelligence. In: International Semantic Web Conference. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2020)
  7. Di Noia, T., Magarelli, C., Maurino, A., Palmonari, M., Rula, A.: Using ontology- based data summarization to develop semantics-aware recommender systems. In: European Semantic Web Conference. pp. 128-144. Springer (2018)
  8. Fathalla, S., Vahdati, S., Auer, S., Lange, C.: Towards a knowledge graph represent- ing research findings by semantifying survey articles. In: International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries. pp. 315-327. Springer (2017)
  9. Kirrane, S., Sabou, M., Fernández, J.D., Osborne, F., Robin, C., Buitelaar, P., Motta, E., Polleres, A.: A decade of semantic web research through the lenses of a mixed methods approach. Semantic Web Journal (2019)
  10. Kishore, R., Ramesh, R.: Ontologies: a handbook of principles, concepts and appli- cations in information systems, vol. 14. Springer Science & Business Media (2007)
  11. Livingston, K.M., Bada, M., Baumgartner, W.A., Hunter, L.E.: Kabob: ontology- based semantic integration of biomedical databases. BMC bioinformatics 16(1), 126 (2015)
  12. Mendes, P.N., Jakob, M., García-Silva, A., Bizer, C.: Dbpedia spotlight: Shedding light on the web of documents. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Confer- ence on Semantic Systems. pp. 1-8. I-Semantics '11, ACM, New York, NY, USA (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/2063518.2063519, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/ 2063518.2063519 · DOI
  13. Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., Dean, J.: Distributed repre- sentations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems - Volume 2. pp. 3111-3119. NIPS'13, Curran Associates Inc., USA (2013), http: //dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2999792.2999959
  14. Muller, A., Dorre, J., Gerstl, P., Seiffert, R.: The taxgen framework: automating the generation of a taxonomy for a large document collection. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers. vol. Track2, pp. 9 pp.-(Jan 1999). https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1999.772687 · DOI
  15. Osborne, F., Mannocci, A., Motta, E.: Forecasting the spreading of tech- nologies in research communities. In: Proceedings of the Knowledge Cap- ture Conference. pp. 1:1-1:8. K-CAP 2017, ACM, New York, NY, USA (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3148011.3148030, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/ 3148011.3148030 · DOI
  16. Osborne, F., Motta, E.: Mining semantic relations between research areas. In: International Semantic Web Conference. pp. 410-426. Springer (2012)
  17. Osborne, F., Motta, E.: Klink-2: Integrating multiple web sources to generate se- mantic topic networks. In: Arenas, M., Corcho, O., Simperl, E., Strohmaier, M., d'Aquin, M., Srinivas, K., Groth, P., Dumontier, M., Heflin, J., Thirunarayan, K., Thirunarayan, K., Staab, S. (eds.) The Semantic Web -ISWC 2015. pp. 408-424. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2015)
  18. Osborne, F., Motta, E., Mulholland, P.: Exploring scholarly data with rexplore. In: International semantic web conference. pp. 460-477. Springer (2013)
  19. Osborne, F., Muccini, H., Lago, P., Motta, E.: Reducing the effort for sys- tematic reviews in software engineering. Data Science pp. 1-29 (08 2019). https://doi.org/10.3233/DS-190019 · DOI
  20. Osborne, F., Salatino, A., Birukou, A., Motta, E.: Automatic classification of springer nature proceedings with smart topic miner. In: Groth, P., Simperl, E., Gray, A., Sabou, M., Krötzsch, M., Lecue, F., Flöck, F., Gil, Y. (eds.) The Se- mantic Web -ISWC 2016. pp. 383-399. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)
  21. Osborne, F., Scavo, G., Motta, E.: Identifying diachronic topic-based research com- munities by clustering shared research trajectories. In: European Semantic Web Conference. pp. 114-129. Springer (2014)
  22. Salatino, A.A., Osborne, F., Birukou, A., Motta, E.: Improving editorial workflow and metadata quality at springer nature. In: Ghidini, C., Hartig, O., Maleshkova, M., Svátek, V., Cruz, I., Hogan, A., Song, J., Lefrançois, M., Gandon, F. (eds.) The Semantic Web -ISWC 2019. pp. 507-525. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019)
  23. Salatino, A.A., Osborne, F., Motta, E.: How are topics born? understanding the research dynamics preceding the emergence of new areas. PeerJ Computer Science 3, e119 (2017)
  24. Salatino, A.A., Osborne, F., Motta, E.: Augur: Forecasting the emergence of new research topics. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. pp. 303-312. JCDL '18, ACM, New York, NY, USA (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3197026.3197052 · DOI
  25. Salatino, A.A., Osborne, F., Thanapalasingam, T., Motta, E.: The cso classifier: Ontology-driven detection of research topics in scholarly articles. In: Doucet, A., Isaac, A., Golub, K., Aalberg, T., Jatowt, A. (eds.) Digital Libraries for Open Knowledge. pp. 296-311. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019)
  26. Salatino, A.A., Thanapalasingam, T., Mannocci, A., Birukou, A., Osborne, F., Motta, E.: The computer science ontology: A comprehensive automatically- generated taxonomy of research areas. Data Intelligence 0(0), 1-38 (0). https://doi.org/10.1162/dint a 00055, https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00055 · DOI
  27. Salatino, A.A., Thanapalasingam, T., Mannocci, A., Osborne, F., Motta, E.: The computer science ontology: a large-scale taxonomy of research areas. In: Interna- tional Semantic Web Conference. pp. 187-205. Springer (2018)
  28. Sanderson, M., Croft, B.: Deriving concept hierarchies from text. In: Proceedings of the 22Nd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Devel- opment in Information Retrieval. pp. 206-213. SIGIR '99, ACM, New York, NY, USA (1999). https://doi.org/10.1145/312624.312679 · DOI
  29. Satopaa, V., Albrecht, J., Irwin, D., Raghavan, B.: Finding a "kneedle" in a haystack: Detecting knee points in system behavior. In: 2011 31st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops. pp. 166-171 (June 2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDCSW.2011.20 · DOI
  30. Shen, Z., Ma, H., Wang, K.: A web-scale system for scientific knowledge ex- ploration. In: Proceedings of ACL 2018, System Demonstrations. pp. 87-92. Association for Computational Linguistics, Melbourne, Australia (Jul 2018). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-4015 · DOI
  31. Thanapalasingam, T., Osborne, F., Birukou, A., Motta, E.: Ontology-based recom- mendation of editorial products. In: Vrandečić, D., Bontcheva, K., Suárez-Figueroa, M.C., Presutti, V., Celino, I., Sabou, M., Kaffee, L.A., Simperl, E. (eds.) The Se- mantic Web -ISWC 2018. pp. 341-358. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2018)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Salatino, A. A., Osborne, F., & Motta, E.
Venue
Studies on the Semantic Web
Publisher
IOS Press
Published
2020-11-12
ISSN
  • 1868-1158
  • 2215-0870
DOI
10.3233/ssw200037
Cited by
3
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