Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38742121›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024

Streamlining event extraction with a simplified annotation framework.

Chanatip Saetia, Areeya Thonglong, Thanpitcha Amornchaiteera, Tawunrat Chalothorn, Supawat Taerungruang, Pakpoom Buabthong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Chanatip SaetiaKasikorn Labs, Kasikorn Business-Technology Group, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Areeya ThonglongDepartment of Thai, Faculty of Humanities, Chiangmai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Thanpitcha AmornchaiteeraDepartment of Thai, Faculty of Humanities, Chiangmai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Tawunrat ChalothornKasikorn Labs, Kasikorn Business-Technology Group, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Supawat TaerungruangDepartment of Thai, Faculty of Humanities, Chiangmai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Pakpoom BuabthongFaculty of Science and Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Event extraction, grounded in semantic relationships, can serve as a simplified relation extraction. In this study, we propose an efficient open-domain event annotation framework tailored for subsequent information extraction, with a specific focus on its applicability to low-resource languages. The proposed event annotation method, which is based on event semantic elements, demonstrates substantial time-efficiency gains over traditional Universal Dependencies (UD) tagging. We show how language-specific pretraining outperforms multilingual counterparts in entity and relation extraction tasks and emphasize the importance of task- and language-specific fine-tuning for optimal model performance. Furthermore, we demonstrate the improvement of model performance upon integrating UD information during pre-training, achieving the F1 score of 71.16 and 60.43% for entity and relation extraction respectively. In addition, we showcase the usage of our extracted event graph for improving node classification in a retail banking domain. This work provides valuable guidance on improving information extraction and outlines a methodology for developing training datasets, particularly for low-resource languages.

Indexed as

annotation guidelineevent extractionevent graphgenerative modelUniversal Dependencies

Identifiers

PMID38742121
PMCPMC11089176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.