The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sentiment analysis of scientific citations
Abstract
While there has been growing interest in the field of sentiment analysis for different text genres in the past few years, relatively less emphasis has been placed on extraction of opinions from scientific literature, more specifically, citations. Citation sentiment detection is an attractive task as it can help researchers in identifying shortcomings and detecting problems in a particular approach, determining the quality of a paper for ranking in citation indexes by including negative citations in the weighting scheme, and recognising issues that have not been addressed as well as possible gaps in current research approaches. Current approaches assume that the sentiment present in the citation sentence represents the true sentiment of the author towards the cited paper and do not take further informal mentions of the citations elsewhere in the article into account. There have also been no attempts to evaluate citation sentiment on a large corpus. This dissertation focuses on the detection of sentiment towards the citations in a scientific article. The detection is performed using the textual information from the article. I address three sub-tasks and present new large corpora for each of the tasks. Firstly, I explore different feature sets for detection of sentiment in explicit citations. For this task, I present a new annotated corpus of more than 8,700 citation sentences which have been labelled as positive, negative or objective towards the cited paper. Experimenting with different feature sets, I show the best result of micro-F score 0.760 is obtained using n-grams of length and dependency relations. Secondly, I show that the assumption that sentiment is limited only to the explicit citation is incorrect. I present a citation context corpus where more than 200,000 sentences from 1,034 paper—reference pairs have been annotated for sentiment. These sentences contain 1,741 citations towards 20 cited papers. I show that including the citation context in the analysis increases the subjective sentiment by almost 185%. I propose new features which help in extracting the citation context and examine their effect on sentiment analysis. Thirdly, I tackle the task of identifying significant citations. I propose features which help discriminate these from citations in passing, and show that they provide statistically significant improvements over a rule-based baseline.
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?
In the citing paper
“Following best practices for annotating citations (Athar, 2014), annotators saw an extended context before and after the citing sentence, provided from the output of ParsCit.”
From Measuring the Evolution of a Scientific Field through Citation Frames (2018) · cites this paper as Athar, 2014
Citations
Cites
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis
Taboada, M., Brooke, J., Tofiloski, M., Voll, K., & Stede, M. (2011) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00049 · Cited by 3,301
ArnetMiner: extraction and mining of academic social networks
Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Zhang, L., & Su, Z. (2008) · Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/1401890.1402008 · Cited by 2,231
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Measuring the Evolution of a Scientific Field through Citation Frames
Jurgens, D., Kumar, S., Hoover, R., McFarland, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2018) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00028 · Cited by 212
Nicholson, J. M., Mordaunt, M., Lopez, P., Uppala, A., Rosati, D., Rodrigues, N. P., Grabitz, P., & Rife, S. C. (2021) · bioRxiv (published in Quantitative Science Studies) · doi:10.1101/2021.03.15.435418 · Cited by 202
Metadata
- Authors
- Athar, A.
- Venue
- Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
- Publisher
- Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
- Published
- 2014
- References
- 3
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