ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2023
SCINOBO: a novel system classifying scholarly communication in a dynamically constructed hierarchical Field-of-Science taxonomy.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Classifying scientific publications according to Field-of-Science taxonomies is of crucial importance, powering a wealth of relevant applications including Search Engines, Tools for Scientific Literature, Recommendation Systems, and Science Monitoring. Furthermore, it allows funders, publishers, scholars, companies, and other stakeholders to organize scientific literature more effectively, calculate impact indicators along Science Impact pathways and identify emerging topics that can also facilitate Science, Technology, and Innovation policy-making. As a result, existing classification schemes for scientific publications underpin a large area of research evaluation with several classification schemes currently in use. However, many existing schemes are domain-specific, comprised of few levels of granularity, and require continuous manual work, making it hard to follow the rapidly evolving landscape of science as new research topics emerge. Based on our previous work of scinobo, which incorporates metadata and graph-based publication bibliometric information to assign Field-of-Science fields to scientific publications, we propose a novel hybrid approach by further employing Neural Topic Modeling and Community Detection techniques to dynamically construct a Field-of-Science taxonomy used as the backbone in automatic publication-level Field-of-Science classifiers. Our proposed Field-of-Science taxonomy is based on the OECD fields of research and development (FORD) classification, developed in the framework of the Frascati Manual containing knowledge domains in broad (first level(L1), one-digit) and narrower (second level(L2), two-digit) levels. We create a 3-level hierarchical taxonomy by manually linking Field-of-Science fields of the sciencemetrix Journal classification to the OECD/FORD level-2 fields. To facilitate a more fine-grained analysis, we extend the aforementioned Field-of-Science taxonomy to level-4 and level-5 fields by employing a pipeline of AI techniques. We evaluate the coherence and the coverage of the Field-of-Science fields for the two additional levels based on synthesis scientific publications in two case studies, in the knowledge domains of Energy and Artificial Intelligence. Our results showcase that the proposed automatically generated Field-of-Science taxonomy captures the dynamics of the two research areas encompassing the underlying structure and the emerging scientific developments.
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.