ArticleJournal of informetrics2020
Using the full-text content of academic articles to identify and evaluate algorithm entities in the domain of natural language processing.
Article in Journal of informetrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the era of big data, the advancement, improvement, and application of algorithms in academic research have played an important role in promoting the development of different disciplines. Academic papers in various disciplines, especially computer science, contain a large number of algorithms. Identifying the algorithms from the full-text content of papers can determine popular or classical algorithms in a specific field and help scholars gain a comprehensive understanding of the algorithms and even the field. To this end, this article takes the field of natural language processing (NLP) as an example and identifies algorithms from academic papers in the field. A dictionary of algorithms is constructed by manually annotating the contents of papers, and sentences containing algorithms in the dictionary are extracted through dictionary-based matching. The number of articles mentioning an algorithm is used as an indicator to analyze the influence of that algorithm. Our results reveal the algorithm with the highest influence in NLP papers and show that classification algorithms represent the largest proportion among the high-impact algorithms. In addition, the evolution of the influence of algorithms reflects the changes in research tasks and topics in the field, and the changes in the influence of different algorithms show different trends. As a preliminary exploration, this paper conducts an analysis of the impact of algorithms mentioned in the academic text, and the results can be used as training data for the automatic extraction of large-scale algorithms in the future. The methodology in this paper is domain-independent and can be applied to other domains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.