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.
Boland2012 proposed a pattern induction method for extracting dataset references from documents in order to overcome the necessity of such a large training set @cite_1 . Their algorithm starts with either the name of a dataset or with an abbreviation of this name, and then drives patterns of all phrases that contain that name or abbreviation in articles. The patterns are applied to articles in order to extract more dataset names and abbreviations. This process repeats with new abbreviations and names until no more datasets can be detected in articles. It derives patterns of phrases that contain dataset references iteratively by using a bootstrapping approach.
@cite_1
183967578
Objective: To develop methods that automatically map abbreviations to their full forms in biomedical articles. @PARASPLIT Methods: The authors developed two methods of mapping defined and undefined abbreviations (defined abbreviations are paired with their full forms in the articles, whereas undefined ones are not). For defined abbreviations, they developed a set of pattern-matching rules to map an abbreviation to its full form and implemented the rules into a software program, AbbRE (for abbreviation recognition and extraction). Using the opinions of domain experts as a reference standard, they evaluated the recall and precision of AbbRE for defined abbreviations in ten biomedical articles randomly selected from the ten most frequently cited medical and biological journals. They also measured the percentage of undefined abbreviations in the same set of articles, and they investigated whether they could map undefined abbreviations to any of four public abbreviation databases (GenBank LocusLink, swissprot, LRABR of the UMLS Specialist Lexicon, and Bioabacus). @PARASPLIT Results: AbbRE had an average 0.70 recall and 0.95 precision for the defined abbreviations. The authors found that an average of 25 percent of abbreviations were defined in biomedical articles and that of a randomly selected subset of undefined abbreviations, 68 percent could be mapped to any of four abbreviation databases. They also found that many abbreviations are ambiguous (i.e., they map to more than one full form in abbreviation databases). @PARASPLIT Conclusion: AbbRE is efficient for mapping defined abbreviations. To couple AbbRE with abbreviation databases for the mapping of undefined abbreviations, not only e