Today, full-texts of scientific articles are often stored in different locations than the used datasets. Dataset registries aim at a closer integration by making datasets citable but authors typically refer to datasets using inconsistent abbreviations and heterogeneous metadata (e.g. title, publication year). It is thus hard to reproduce research results, to access datasets for further analysis, and to determine the impact of a dataset. Manually detecting references to datasets in scientific articles is time-consuming and requires expert knowledge in the underlying research domain.We propose and evaluate a semi-automatic three-step approach for finding explicit references to datasets in social sciences articles.We first extract pre-defined special features from dataset titles in the da|ra registry, then detect references to datasets using the extracted features, and finally match the references found with corresponding dataset titles. The approach does not require a corpus of articles (avoiding the cold start problem) and performs well on a test corpus. We achieved an F-measure of 0.84 for detecting references in full-texts and an F-measure of 0.83 for finding correct matches of detected references in the da|ra dataset registry.
Sahami2006 suggest a similarity function based on query expansion @cite_5 . Their algorithm determines the degree of semantic similarity between two phrases. Each of these phrases is searched by an online search engine and then expanded by using returned documents. Afterwards, the new phrases are used for computing similarity.
@cite_5
2152180407
In Semantic Textual Similarity (STS), systems rate the degree of semantic equivalence, on a graded scale from 0 to 5, with 5 being the most similar. This year we set up two tasks: (i) a core task (CORE), and (ii) a typed-similarity task (TYPED). CORE is similar in set up to SemEval STS 2012 task with pairs of sentences from sources related to those of 2012, yet different in genre from the 2012 set, namely, this year we included newswire headlines, machine translation evaluation datasets and multiple lexical resource glossed sets. TYPED, on the other hand, is novel and tries to characterize why two items are deemed similar, using cultural heritage items which are described with metadata such as title, author or description. Several types of similarity have been defined, including similar author, similar time period or similar location. The annotation for both tasks leverages crowdsourcing, with relative high interannotator correlation, ranging from 62 to 87 . The CORE task attracted 34 participants with 89 runs, and the TYPED task attracted 6 teams with 14 runs.