We propose a deep learning model for identifying structure within experiment narratives in scientific literature. We take a sequence labeling approach to this problem, and label clauses within experiment narratives to identify the different parts of the experiment. Our dataset consists of paragraphs taken from open access PubMed papers labeled with rhetorical information as a result of our pilot annotation. Our model is a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) cells that labels clauses. The clause representations are computed by combining word representations using a novel attention mechanism that involves a separate RNN. We compare this model against LSTMs where the input layer has simple or no attention and a feature rich CRF model. Furthermore, we describe how our work could be useful for information extraction from scientific literature.
@cite_5 used SVM and Na "i ve Bayes classifiers to compare the three schemes described above. @cite_7 also studied the problem of extracting focus, techniques and the domain of research papers to identify the influence of research communities over each other.
@cite_5 @cite_7
2031253971 2063198586 1570978137 2097385711
Text classification methods have been evaluated on topic classification tasks. This thesis extends the empirical evaluation to emotion classification tasks in the literary domain. This study selects two literary text classification problems---the eroticism classification in Dickinson's poems and the sentimentalism classification in early American novels---as two cases for this evaluation. Both problems focus on identifying certain kinds of emotion---a document property other than topic. This study chooses two popular text classification algorithms---naive Bayes and Support Vector Machines (SVM), and three feature engineering options---stemming, stopword removal and statistical feature selection (Odds Ratio and SVM)---as the subjects of evaluation. This study aims to examine the effects of the chosen classifiers and feature engineering options on the two emotion classification problems, and the interaction between the classifiers and the feature engineering options. This thesis seeks empirical answers to the following research questions: (1) is SVM a better classifier than naive Bayes regarding classification accuracy, new literary knowledge discovery and potential for example-based retrieval? (2) is SVM a better feature selection method than Odds Ratio regarding feature reduction rate and classification accuracy improvement? (3) does stop word removal affect the classification performance? (4) does stemming affect the performance of classifiers and feature selection methods? Some of our conclusions are consistent with what are obtained in topic classification, such as Odds Ratio does not improve SVM performance and stop word removal might harm classification. Some conclusions contradict previous results, such as SVM does not beat naive Bayes in both cases. Some findings are new to this area---SVM and naive Bayes select top features in different frequency ranges; stemming might harm feature selection methods. These experiment results provide new insights to the relation between classification methods, feature engineering options and non-topic document properties. They also provide guidance for classification method selection in literary text classification applications. Objectives: To investigate whether (1) machine learning classifiers can help identify nonrandomized studies eligible for full-text screening by systematic reviewers; (2) classifier performance varies with optimization; and (3) the number of citations to screen can be reduced. Methods: We used an open-source, data-mining suite to process and classify biomedical citations that point to mostly nonrandomized studies from 2 systematic reviews. We built training and test sets for citation portions and compared classifier performance by considering the value of indexing, various feature sets, and optimization. We conducted our experiments in 2 phases. The design of phase I with no optimization was: 4 classifiersx3 feature setsx3 citation portions. Classifiers included k-nearest neighbor, naive Bayes, complement naive Bayes, and evolutionary support vector machine. Feature sets included bag of words, and 2- and 3-term n-grams. Citation portions included titles, titles and abstracts, and full citations with metadata. Phase II with optimization involved a subset of the classifiers, as well as features extracted from full citations, and full citations with overweighted titles. We optimized features and classifier parameters by manually setting information gain thresholds outside of a process for iterative grid optimization with 10-fold cross-validations. We independently tested models on data reserved for that purpose and statistically compared classifier performance on 2 types of feature sets. We estimated the number of citations needed to screen by reviewers during a second pass through a reduced set of citations. Results: In phase I, the evolutionary support vector machine returned the best recall for bag of words extracted from full citations; the best classifier with respect to overall performance was k-nearest neighbor. No classifier attained good enough recall for this task without optimization. In phase II, we boosted performance with optimization for evolutionary support vector machine and complement naive Bayes classifiers. Generalization performance was better for the latter in the independent tests. For evolutionary support vector machine and complement naive Bayes classifiers, the initial retrieval set was reduced by 46 and 35 , respectively. Conclusions: Machine learning classifiers can help identify nonrandomized studies eligible for full-text screening by systematic reviewers. Optimization can markedly improve performance of classifiers. However, generalizability varies with the classifier. The number of citations to screen during a second independent pass through the citations can be substantially reduced. We compare Naive Bayes and Support Vector Machines on the task of multiclass text classification. Using a variety of approaches to combine the underlying binary classifiers, we find that SVMs substantially outperform Naive Bayes. We present full multiclass results on two well-known text data sets, including the lowest error to date on both data sets. We develop a new indicator of binary performance to show that the SVM’s lower multiclass error is a result of its improved binary performance. Furthermore, we demonstrate and explore the surprising result that one-vs-all classification performs favorably compared to other approaches even though it has no error-correcting properties. This paper addresses the issue of automatically extracting keyphrases from a document. Previously, this problem was formalized as classification and learning methods for classification were utilized. This paper points out that it is more essential to cast the problem as ranking and employ a learning to rank method to perform the task. Specifically, it employs Ranking SVM, a state-of-art method of learning to rank, in keyphrase extraction. Experimental results on three datasets show that Ranking SVM significantly outperforms the baseline methods of SVM and Naive Bayes, indicating that it is better to exploit learning to rank techniques in keyphrase extraction.