Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33613016›Full record

ArticleJournal of mechanical design (New York, N.Y. : 1990)2020

Organizing Tagged Knowledge: Similarity Measures and Semantic Fluency in Structure Mining.

Rachael Sexton, Mark Fuge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of mechanical design (New York, N.Y. : 1990), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rachael SextonSystems Integration Division, Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20871.
Mark FugeDept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742.

Funding

Intramural NIST DOC 9999-NIST
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recovering a system's underlying structure from its historical records (also called structure mining) is essential to making valid inferences about that system's behavior. For example, making reliable predictions about system failures based on maintenance work-order data requires determining how concepts described within the work order are related. Obtaining such structural information is challenging, requiring system understanding, synthesis, and representation design. This is often either too difficult or too time-consuming to produce. Consequently, a common approach to quickly eliciting tacit structural knowledge from experts is to gather uncontrolled keywords as record labels-i.e., "tags." One can then map those tags to concepts within the structure and quantitatively infer relationships between them. Existing models of tag similarity tend to either depend on correlation strength (e.g. overall co-occurrence frequencies), or on conditional strength (e.g. tag sequence probabilities). A key difficulty in applying either model is understanding under what conditions one is better than the other for overall structure recovery. In this paper, we investigate the core assumptions and implications of these two classes of similarity measures on structure recovery tasks. Then, using lessons from this characterization, we borrow from recent psychology literature on semantic fluency tasks to construct a tag similarity measure that emulates how humans recall tags from memory. We show through empirical testing that this method combines strengths of both common modeling paradigms. We also demonstrate its potential as a pre-processor for structure mining tasks via a case study in semi-supervised learning on real excavator maintenance work-orders.

Identifiers

PMID33613016
PMCPMC7890696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.