ArticlePatterns (New York, N.Y.)2020
Sentiment Analysis of Conservation Studies Captures Successes of Species Reintroductions.
Article in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- RECODE - Relational Ecological COrpus for Data Extraction.Biodiversity data journal · 2026Article
- New opportunities and challenges for conservation evidence synthesis from advances in natural language processing.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Is academic writing becoming more positive? A large-scale diachronic case study of Science research articles across 25 years.Scientometrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Learning from the rapidly growing body of scientific articles is constrained by human bandwidth. Existing methods in machine learning have been developed to extract knowledge from human language and may automate this process. Here, we apply sentiment analysis, a type of natural language processing, to facilitate a literature review in reintroduction biology. We analyzed 1,030,558 words from 4,313 scientific abstracts published over four decades using four previously trained lexicon-based models and one recursive neural tensor network model. We find frequently used terms share both a general and a domain-specific value, with either positive (success, protect, growth) or negative (threaten, loss, risk) sentiment. Sentiment trends suggest that reintroduction studies have become less variable and increasingly successful over time and seem to capture known successes and challenges for conservation biology. This approach offers promise for rapidly extracting explicit and latent information from a large corpus of scientific texts.
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.